Feature requests

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:46 pm

I'd like it if there was a setting in Lexplorer that gave you the option of only viewing words of a certain length in all the boxes when running a search. It probably wouldnt be a great amount of use to most people, but it would be good if you have a fetish for compiling words and listing them in length order.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:14 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
As an additional safe-guard, how about making the conundrum disappear while you are entering your answer? I suggested this as a possibility to be used on the show (you'd have to put the physical conundrum board out of view of the players, and then just make the monitor shut out on buzzer press) and I reckon it would work pretty well to help stamp out what is essentially cheating.

Thoughts?

I've thought about doing this before. I think it would probably be one of those things like the numbers entry method, which players constantly whine about even though it's the only fair way to do it.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:38 pm

This feature would probably become more useless as time goes by, but I think it would be pretty cool if words that had only ever been spotted once (or only ever spotted by one user) were displayed in the user's profile, sort of like how the nines that people have spotted also appear in their profiles.

Ben Wilson · Post by **Ben Wilson** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:57 pm

For statland can you add all the good stuff from cdb like 'best winners, worst winners' etc, also stuff like games won with the fewest maxes?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:56 pm

Ben Wilson wrote:For statland can you add all the good stuff from cdb like 'best winners, worst winners' etc, also stuff like games won with the fewest maxes?

Your wish... http://www.apterous.org/viewformat.php?format=1
Similar pages for other formats are under the "More..." links from http://www.apterous.org/statsummary.php .

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:14 pm

What is a shut-out?
Steven Briers won to 'love' so i presume it's not that?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 1:06 pm

D Eadie wrote:What is a shut-out?
Steven Briers won to 'love' so i presume it's not that?

It is exactly that, yep. But both players have to be humans or it doesn't count.

Matthew Green · Post by **Matthew Green** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:10 pm

What about a 'tournament mode' like you get on football computer games?

You start by playing a fictional player and try and win 8 consecutive games. These players have ability level of 1000-1500 as thats about what the average contestant on the show have. Then, depending on how you do, you may make it to the QFs. You could maybe have a 400+ point total to qualify and then your QF ranking depends on your score.

In the QF and DF you play someone of higher ability, depending on your rank (so if you scored 800 points in qualifying you would get a weaker opponent as you'd be #1seed). These opponents would be ranging from Velvet standard to Prime standard for your final opponent should you make it all the way.

Then if you get a certain overall score you get into the CoC and face even better opponents before facing a Rex style end of level baddie.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:19 pm

I was thinking about a French version of Lexplorer (aptly codenamed L'Explorer) and maybe a Google-style hyper one, Lexploooorer.

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:41 am

I really like that new addition in player profile of disallowed words, but could you have them come up in different colours, so that words you played and were disallowed because the letters weren't there *such as alginates for me for example, in a game of hyper with no n...* but are actually valid, come up differently from those which are actually phony because they're not in?

kevin manthorpe · Post by **kevin manthorpe** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:09 pm

Is it possible to alter the window sizes or layouts so that you can see more of the players list without losing too much of the main chat window?

And at the risk of displaying my ignorance, is there a guide to how (or for that matter, why) items accumulate in the inventory? Would it be possible to trade it on ebay for a polo shirt? What would a teapot be worth??

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:49 pm

kevin manthorpe wrote:Is it possible to alter the window sizes or layouts so that you can see more of the players list without losing too much of the main chat window?

Yes, just drag the divider between them.

And at the risk of displaying my ignorance, is there a guide to how (or for that matter, why) items accumulate in the inventory? Would it be possible to trade it on ebay for a polo shirt? What would a teapot be worth??

http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1872

Oliver Garner · Post by **Oliver Garner** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:12 am

How about there being a second duel on some days as a format championship?
For example Letters, Numbers and Conundrum attacks and other stuff and the winner wins the prestige of being declared Letters/Numbers/Conundrum champion and perhaps get an item in the display case

Stuart Arnot · Post by **Stuart Arnot** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:32 pm

How about a list, alongside the nines and disallowed words, of the words that only you have successfully declared. I know, for example, that I am the only player to have declared MUNITIONS or DIALOGIC, but are there any more?

kevin manthorpe · Post by **kevin manthorpe** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:50 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:kevin manthorpe wrote:
Is it possible to alter the window sizes or layouts so that you can see more of the players list without losing too much of the main chat window?

Yes, just drag the divider between them.

Yes, figured that. Given though the amount of "spare screen", might it be possible for the user to drag or customise the layout a bit so that increasing the size of one window is not at the expense of the other?

And was there anything forthcoming (another user's request, but a goody) about a flag in the players list of those currently playing games (or not) to help with challenging?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:30 pm

kevin manthorpe wrote:Yes, figured that. Given though the amount of "spare screen", might it be possible for the user to drag or customise the layout a bit so that increasing the size of one window is not at the expense of the other?

That would be pretty difficult, because you can't resize applets once they're running. I might add a Large Mode or something for people with large screens.

kevin manthorpe wrote:And was there anything forthcoming (another user's request, but a goody) about a flag in the players list of those currently playing games (or not) to help with challenging?

That's quite a lot harder than it sounds like it would be, but it's on my to-do.

kevin manthorpe · Post by **kevin manthorpe** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:33 pm

Thanks Charlie. I realise a lot of this stuff can be time consuming and complicated. <Respect>

I don't think I have a particularly wider screen than most people, just that in full window mode there's space on the right that I thought would be better for chat, leaving more room for the player list on the left, or vice versa.

Anyway, not wanting to carry on with this coz i haven't even been here a month! Keep up the good work.

Julie T · Post by **Julie T** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 am

Daniel O'Dowd wrote:I really like that new addition in player profile of disallowed words, but could you have them come up in different colours, so that words you played and were disallowed because the letters weren't there *such as alginates for me for example, in a game of hyper with no n...* but are actually valid, come up differently from those which are actually phony because they're not in?

IAWTP! Or 2 separate lists, please.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:23 am

kevin manthorpe wrote:And was there anything forthcoming (another user's request, but a goody) about a flag in the players list of those currently playing games (or not) to help with challenging?

Done.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:48 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
kevin manthorpe wrote:And was there anything forthcoming (another user's request, but a goody) about a flag in the players list of those currently playing games (or not) to help with challenging?
Done.

Wow - this is possibly the biggest leap forward in Apterous usability since I've been playing. Many thanks Charlie!

Dominic Colley · Post by **Dominic Colley** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:15 am

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:
kevin manthorpe wrote:And was there anything forthcoming (another user's request, but a goody) about a flag in the players list of those currently playing games (or not) to help with challenging?
Done.
Wow - this is possibly the biggest leap forward in Apterous usability since I've been playing. Many thanks Charlie!

Very impressive! Apterous is class.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 1:16 pm

Stuart Arnot wrote:How about a list, alongside the nines and disallowed words, of the words that only you have successfully declared. I know, for example, that I am the only player to have declared MUNITIONS or DIALOGIC, but are there any more?

Similarly, I am the only person to have got ABJ.

Darren Carter · Post by **Darren Carter** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:50 pm

Kai Laddiman wrote: Similarly, I am the only person to have got ABJ.

Blimey.....

Stuart Arnot · Post by **Stuart Arnot** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:26 pm

Darren Carter wrote:
Kai Laddiman wrote: Similarly, I am the only person to have got ABJ.

Blimey.....

hahahahaha

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:41 pm

Daniel O'Dowd wrote:I really like that new addition in player profile of disallowed words, but could you have them come up in different colours, so that words you played and were disallowed because the letters weren't there *such as alginates for me for example, in a game of hyper with no n...* but are actually valid, come up differently from those which are actually phony because they're not in?

Done. I just eliminated words that weren't in the selection, because that kind of transient error is really not interesting.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:00 am

Hell, that's a lot of disallowed words.

Julie T · Post by **Julie T** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:05 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
kevin manthorpe wrote:And was there anything forthcoming (another user's request, but a goody) about a flag in the players list of those currently playing games (or not) to help with challenging?
Done.

Fantastic, thank you!

Charlie Reams wrote:
Daniel O'Dowd wrote:I really like that new addition in player profile of disallowed words, but could you have them come up in different colours, so that words you played and were disallowed because the letters weren't there *such as alginates for me for example, in a game of hyper with no n...* but are actually valid, come up differently from those which are actually phony because they're not in?
Done. I just eliminated words that weren't in the selection, because that kind of transient error is really not interesting.

Although I agree with Ian that it makes horrifying reading, especially multiple entries, it should help me avoid some of them in the future. Thanks again!

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:33 pm

Julie T wrote: Although I agree with Ian that it makes horrifying reading, especially multiple entries, it should help me avoid some of them in the future. Thanks again!

I did wonder about highlighting repeats, because that's the kind of error you really want to eliminate. I haven't come up with a nice way of doing it yet.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:50 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Julie T wrote: Although I agree with Ian that it makes horrifying reading, especially multiple entries, it should help me avoid some of them in the future. Thanks again!
I did wonder about highlighting repeats, because that's the kind of error you really want to eliminate. I haven't come up with a nice way of doing it yet.

Lol, Rodolf's invalid words list.

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:46 pm

The bots are taking the piss now. Maybe i creamed Rex out of a few points in Hypernundrum, but now its getting the answers in 2 seconds, which is unrealistic on the whole and spoils it for me. Will have to carry on play Hypernundrums against Prune.

Just played Velvet and it also has just spotted two difficult conundrums, in a ridiculous time of 0.4 seconds. I don't think its possible for a human to react and press the correct key in this time, so why can the bots?

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:49 pm

Jon Corby wrote:Lol, Rodolf's invalid words list.

Even lollier: Kirk's disallowed words list.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:04 pm

Stuart Arnot wrote:How about a list, alongside the nines and disallowed words, of the words that only you have successfully declared. I know, for example, that I am the only player to have declared MUNITIONS or DIALOGIC, but are there any more?

I like this idea too, might be an expensive query to run though.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:30 pm

Paul Howe wrote:
Stuart Arnot wrote:How about a list, alongside the nines and disallowed words, of the words that only you have successfully declared. I know, for example, that I am the only player to have declared MUNITIONS or DIALOGIC, but are there any more?
I like this idea too, might be an expensive query to run though.

I am the only person to declare ESQUILAX

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:48 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Paul Howe wrote:
Stuart Arnot wrote:How about a list, alongside the nines and disallowed words, of the words that only you have successfully declared. I know, for example, that I am the only player to have declared MUNITIONS or DIALOGIC, but are there any more?
I like this idea too, might be an expensive query to run though.
I am the only person to declare ESQUILAX

And I'm the only one to have OSCULATED during a normal game.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:54 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:Lol, Rodolf's invalid words list.
Even lollier: Kirk's disallowed words list.

Paul Howe's disallowed words list for goatdown. Wow. So we know now his secret to success really is guesswork.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:23 pm

Jon Corby wrote: I am the only person to declare ESQUILAX

Ha, I remember that, was awesome.

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Paul Howe's disallowed words list for goatdown. Wow. So we know now his secret to success really is guesswork.

Makes me look like a retard, doesn't it?

Most of them are just guesses for when AP has conjured up something ridiculous, but very occasionally they turn out to be OK. Happily my words disallowed in standard games look much more sensible.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:51 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Stuart Arnot wrote:How about a list, alongside the nines and disallowed words, of the words that only you have successfully declared.
I am the only person to declare ESQUILAX

But not successfully. If you're going to crow about uniquely disallowed words, then I am the only person to have declared YARG (a Cornish semi-hard cheese - no jokes please).

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:34 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:
Stuart Arnot wrote:How about a list, alongside the nines and disallowed words, of the words that only you have successfully declared.
I am the only person to declare ESQUILAX
But not successfully. If you're going to crow about uniquely disallowed words, then I am the only person to have declared YARG (a Cornish semi-hard cheese - no jokes please).

Originally made by pirates?

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:43 pm

Ian Volante wrote:Hell, that's a lot of disallowed words.

Pff, that's nothing. You should see mine!

My favourites are SALTATATATATED and MOORRRRRRRRRRRR.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:14 pm

JimBentley wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:Hell, that's a lot of disallowed words.
Pff, that's nothing. You should see mine!

My favourites are SALTATATATATED and MOORRRRRRRRRRRR.

MUXINW was also a pretty bold guess.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:20 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:YARG (a Cornish semi-hard cheese - no jokes please).
Originally made by pirates?

The cheese or the jokes?

Oliver Garner · Post by **Oliver Garner** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:44 pm

On the list of top players (overall), I am not on the list of the top 25. However, I think I have got a max % reasonably close to the bottom player of around 50%. For players not on this list, could there either be a section on that page which displays the top 25 and just you (possibly with a ranking) or put the % max from the past 30 days as an area of the user page.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:58 pm

Oliver Garner wrote:On the list of top players (overall), I am not on the list of the top 25. However, I think I have got a max % reasonably close to the bottom player of around 50%. For players not on this list, could there either be a section on that page which displays the top 25 and just you (possibly with a ranking) or put the % max from the past 30 days as an area of the user page.

That would be pretty difficult, because the top players page is generated once a day and then stored, since it takes quite a while to compute, and the same version is then presented to everyone. However that might change with some changes I have in mind.

Clare Sudbery · Post by **Clare Sudbery** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:34 pm

Loving the new colour-coded player status thing (ie the ability to tell who's playing and who isn't). V useful indeed - thanks for that.

Kevin Davis · Post by **Kevin Davis** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:57 pm

Stuart Arnot wrote:How about a list, alongside the nines and disallowed words, of the words that only you have successfully declared. I know, for example, that I am the only player to have declared MUNITIONS or DIALOGIC, but are there any more?

Jon Corby wrote:
Paul Howe wrote:I am the only person to declare ESQUILAX
And I'm the only one to have OSCULATED during a normal game.

[/quote]

I'm still proud of PAROCHIAL.

kevin manthorpe · Post by **kevin manthorpe** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:59 pm

On the main apterous menu index page, how about an option with INSTRUCTIONS?

I am grateful for help I received familiarising myself with shortcuts and inputting tips (thanks esp to lesley) and spent much time trawling the forums for others, eg FAQ, that seem fairly basic now. And yes, there are practice games, but could many of you be bothered?

As a result I always share these with new players, especially before the numbers round, but think you'd get a better retention rate if you didn't have to rely so much on self-discovery. You may (or may not?) be surprised how many new-ish players, even with more games than me, are unaware of these. eg clicking on <=subtotal> tile at right in numbers to put it up the top, saving having to use brackets etc. I'm guessing btw that apterous subscribes to BOMDAS, not regular calculator maths?

And in the interests of fairness, should Des's patience after the letters rounds start up before declaring, coz it's possible to take one's time checking the selection is valid, contains no phantom letters, etc. Or is this (shock/horror) a cheat?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:36 pm

kevin manthorpe wrote:On the main apterous menu index page, how about an option with INSTRUCTIONS?

I am grateful for help I received familiarising myself with shortcuts and inputting tips (thanks esp to lesley) and spent much time trawling the forums for others, that seem fairly basic now.

As a result I always share these with new players, especially before the numbers round, but think you'd get a better retention rate if you didn't have to rely so much on self-discovery. You may (or may not?) be surprised how many new-ish players, even with more games than me, are unaware of these. eg clicking on <=subtotal> tile at right in numbers to put it up the top, saving having to use brackets etc. I'm guessing btw that apterous subscribes to BOMDAS, not regular calculator maths?

You're absolutely right, it's just so boring to do stuff like that that I've totally avoided it so far.

And in the interests of fairness, should Des's patience after the letters rounds start up before declaring, coz it's possible to take one's time checking the selection is valid, contains no phantom letters, etc. Or is this (shock/horror) a cheat?

Not sure what you mean here, there's no patience bar on choosing which word to declare.

kevin manthorpe · Post by **kevin manthorpe** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:22 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:You're absolutely right, it's just so boring to do stuff like that that I've totally avoided it so far.

Fair enough, but how many new financial members might you be losing because they run out of patience trying to figure things out? Or if they can't, just give up totally? I'm prepared to help (in trade for financial status) by offering to design a menu tree and commentaries, if this were to save you time. Basic guide only, no idea of programming!

Kevin Manthorpe wrote:I'm guessing btw that apterous subscribes to BOMDAS, not regular calculator maths?

ie The true order. 3x4+6x3=30, not 54!! I'm not really prepared to experiment in a rated game, given there's not many practices played.

Charlie Reams wrote:Not sure what you mean here, there's no patience bar on choosing which word to declare.

What I'm saying is that perhaps there should be. Especially when the system is running slow, players have the opportunity to take ages to double check words are valid, contain no phantom letters, etc, etc, before declaring. I don't think this is in the spirit of the game, hence the use of Des's patience to set a time limit. FYI I double check for phantom letters, but would never consult an online dicitionary or the like before declaring. Hence I missed out on UNBRAIDS today!

P.S. Thanks for the (yellow) Easter egg, though I have no idea how I got it!

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:27 pm

Charlie Reams, whilst discussing an Instructions page for apterous, wrote:You're absolutely right, it's just so boring to do stuff like that that I've totally avoided it so far.

Charlie - I meant to offer you help with this before, but I didn't. I'm good at writing instructional shit so I'm your man if you want some. Help, that is.

Charlie Reams wrote:
kevin manthorpe wrote: And in the interests of fairness, should Des's patience after the letters rounds start up before declaring, coz it's possible to take one's time checking the selection is valid, contains no phantom letters, etc. Or is this (shock/horror) a cheat?
Not sure what you mean here, there's no patience bar on choosing which word to declare.

Had to re-read it to confirm but Kevin's definitely saying that he thinks the Patience Meter (should be rebranded or 'Des' changed to 'Jeff') SHOULD be introduced to the word declaration dialog box to prevent too much thinking time. I'm inclined to agree, especially as this is another touch that would make it more like the show. Presumably if you don't choose a word within five seconds the top word is chosen automatically.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:15 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:Had to re-read it to confirm but Kevin's definitely saying that he thinks the Patience Meter (should be rebranded or 'Des' changed to 'Jeff') SHOULD be introduced to the word declaration dialog box to prevent too much thinking time. I'm inclined to agree, especially as this is another touch that would make it more like the show. Presumably if you don't choose a word within five seconds the top word is chosen automatically.

Hmm, good arguments, although this would probably scare the n00basaurs even more.

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:42 pm

I agree with the concept of a patience bar for declarations, having experienced some rather long waits recently, however, this tends to run into the problem that people (well, I do) will often note words they won't play ahead of equal length words they then can declare and which exist. Often something that seems risky leads to finding an anagram, so perhaps simply have, say, a 7 second countdown after which you aren't alllowed to declare at all?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:52 pm

Daniel O'Dowd wrote:I agree with the concept of a patience bar for declarations, having experienced some rather long waits recently, however, this tends to run into the problem that people (well, I do) will often note words they won't play ahead of equal length words they then can declare and which exist. Often something that seems risky leads to finding an anagram, so perhaps simply have, say, a 7 second countdown after which you aren't alllowed to declare at all?

I didn't understand any of that. Also why are you naked?

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:01 am

Oh I'm not naked. It just looks like that. Apologies; it can't look very candles.

What I mean, is that you typically make notes on several x-letter words you might declare, in the same way you'd perhaps write down common endings from a selection in real. But you subsequently feel most of them are risky, and at the last minute find a legal word. When declaration comes, words are listed in descending length and earliest written. So if we implemented the patience bar with the followup that after 5 seconds your highest-up word were autodeclared, it would not be as fair when people get awarded points for words they'd never usually declare. Think of it as similar to when on the show the host will sometimes (albeit rarely) stop a contestant midway through an overstumbly numbers solution, like Jeffrey.

If people saw that they had a finite time to declare, but then would be defaulted to no declaration whatsoever, they may be far more likely to declare promptly even when having to decide which of two words is more likely in the dictionary.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:45 am

Daniel O'Dowd wrote:Oh I'm not naked. It just looks like that. Apologies; it can't look very candles.

What I mean, is that you typically make notes on several x-letter words you might declare, in the same way you'd perhaps write down common endings from a selection in real. But you subsequently feel most of them are risky, and at the last minute find a legal word. When declaration comes, words are listed in descending length and earliest written. So if we implemented the patience bar with the followup that after 5 seconds your highest-up word were autodeclared, it would not be as fair when people get awarded points for words they'd never usually declare. Think of it as similar to when on the show the host will sometimes (albeit rarely) stop a contestant midway through an overstumbly numbers solution, like Jeffrey.

If people saw that they had a finite time to declare, but then would be defaulted to no declaration whatsoever, they may be far more likely to declare promptly even when having to decide which of two words is more likely in the dictionary.

I see what you mean, but I think that has the potential to be just incredibly annoying, if for example you look away for a few seconds and the game just declares nothing. The rare occasions when players might pick up extra points for wild guesses are compensated for by the much more common case that they offer something ridiculous and look like an idiot.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:37 am

Kevin Manthorpe wrote:I'm guessing btw that apterous subscribes to BOMDAS, not regular calculator maths?

ie The true order. 3x4+6x3=30, not 54!! I'm not really prepared to experiment in a rated game, given there's not many practices played.

Correct, yes. Although if you use the = button, you can make it behave like a calculator.

Kevin Manthorpe wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:Not sure what you mean here, there's no patience bar on choosing which word to declare.
What I'm saying is that perhaps there should be.

This is implemented now. Five seconds seems plenty.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:36 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
Kevin Manthorpe wrote:I'm guessing btw that apterous subscribes to BOMDAS, not regular calculator maths?

ie The true order. 3x4+6x3=30, not 54!! I'm not really prepared to experiment in a rated game, given there's not many practices played.
Correct, yes. Although if you use the = button, you can make it behave like a calculator.

Kevin Manthorpe wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:Not sure what you mean here, there's no patience bar on choosing which word to declare.
What I'm saying is that perhaps there should be.
This is implemented now. Five seconds seems plenty.

I like the feature where it flags up your longest untried word - no doubt some laughs to be had from this feature!

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:31 pm

Ian Volante wrote: I like the feature where it flags up your longest untried word - no doubt some laughs to be had from this feature!

Thanks

Andrew Feist · Post by **Andrew Feist** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:59 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
kevin manthorpe wrote:On the main apterous menu index page, how about an option with INSTRUCTIONS?

I am grateful for help I received familiarising myself with shortcuts and inputting tips (thanks esp to lesley) and spent much time trawling the forums for others, that seem fairly basic now.

As a result I always share these with new players, especially before the numbers round, but think you'd get a better retention rate if you didn't have to rely so much on self-discovery. You may (or may not?) be surprised how many new-ish players, even with more games than me, are unaware of these. eg clicking on <=subtotal> tile at right in numbers to put it up the top, saving having to use brackets etc. I'm guessing btw that apterous subscribes to BOMDAS, not regular calculator maths?
You're absolutely right, it's just so boring to do stuff like that that I've totally avoided it so far.

I (think I) have sent Charlie a start on some documentation, in the hopes of getting a kick-start.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:14 am

Jon Corby wrote:As an additional safe-guard, how about making the conundrum disappear while you are entering your answer? I suggested this as a possibility to be used on the show (you'd have to put the physical conundrum board out of view of the players, and then just make the monitor shut out on buzzer press) and I reckon it would work pretty well to help stamp out what is essentially cheating.

Thoughts?

My only thought about this is that there is a difference between the show and apterous, in that on the show you don't have to spell the conundrum answer correctly, I know that I find myself occasionally spotting what the word is but then being a bit slow in typing it in whilst I make sure I get all the letters in the right order. Not entirely sure how I feel about this - should the contestants have to spell the word on the show?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:27 am

Michael Wallace wrote: My only thought about this is that there is a difference between the show and apterous, in that on the show you don't have to spell the conundrum answer correctly,

Yeah, that can occasionally be annoying, e.g. NANOMETER. Think it's just the nature of the beast really, it's useful to practise spelling them correctly anyway in case they come up in a normal round.