Re: Feature requests
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 2:22 pm
Given how apterous categorically isn't Countdown- it even says so on the front page- can we have an option to change the background/letter colour of the tiles?
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
I know what you mean, it's not perfect - but nor's that. Otherwise people who've been away from the site more than 24 hours (come on, we all have to do it sometimes) won't be able to catch up.JimBentley wrote:Completely non-essential, but could the list of Happenings on the title page default to Happenings from the last 24 hours, rather than the latest 20 Happenings? Usually I only get chance to log in once a day and if there's been a game with lots of comments, the Happenings often go back only a couple of hours or so.
Thanks so much!Thomas Carey wrote: (You may change the names if you wish.)
Thanks so much!Thomas Carey wrote: (You may change the names if you wish.)
Lol, still not sure if those three are a good idea or not.Charlie Reams wrote:Thanks so much!Thomas Carey wrote: (You may change the names if you wish.)
17th of each month is New Variant Day. Will it be Lockdown Jnr? Tune in to find out!Thomas Carey wrote:Still, please give us Lockdown Junior.
Thanks, thought you just rolled new variants out whenever you could be bothered. Good system, that.Charlie Reams wrote:17th of each month is New Variant Day. Will it be Lockdown Jnr? Tune in to find out!Thomas Carey wrote:Still, please give us Lockdown Junior.
(Yes.)
Really? Where did that come from? Is this because you're so kooky and random? You'd get on with Sophie Krol!Charlie Reams wrote:17th of each month is New Variant Day.
As of February, I decided it was a good way to remind myself to do stuff. (17 Feb is my birthday.)Gavin Chipper wrote:Really? Where did that come from? Is this because you're so kooky and random? You'd get on with Sophie Krol!Charlie Reams wrote:17th of each month is New Variant Day.
And my mum's, which I'm sure you haven't forgotten. If you like, you can remind yourself to do my mum. Would that help?Charlie Reams wrote:As of February, I decided it was a good way to remind myself to do stuff. (17 Feb is my birthday.)Gavin Chipper wrote:Really? Where did that come from? Is this because you're so kooky and random? You'd get on with Sophie Krol!Charlie Reams wrote:17th of each month is New Variant Day.
Me and Rhys aren't brothers. Further clarification required.Ryan Taylor wrote:Your mum's a fucking whore!
Or make a new one.Thomas Carey wrote:What is the url (is there even one?) for the apterous podcast? When it disappears off the News thing it will be gone forever. Please change.
So...Charlie Reams wrote:17th of each month is New Variant Day. Will it be Lockdown Jnr? Tune in to find out!Thomas Carey wrote:Still, please give us Lockdown Junior.
(Yes.)
I think it would be generally good to have duels every so often that are quite specific in the skills they use, which might spread out the winners a bit more.I think it would be a good idea to have a numbers only duel once a week (which can be any variant). It's probably come up before, but I'd probably have fewer conundrums in most of the duels. I find it a bit annoying when I think I'm doing quite well and then a conundrum comes along and can make or break (usually break) the whole thing. So I'd have no conundrums at all most of the time (certainly lots of the time anyway). I think you could polarise it a bit more so that you either have no conundrums or loads of them.
i think soRhys Benjamin wrote:Have we ever had a duel in Spoilage?
No we haven't.Soph K wrote:i think soRhys Benjamin wrote:Have we ever had a duel in Spoilage?
If you knew the answer why did you ask? That's really annoying. When I was in school someone asked me what class did we have next. I said "not sure, english I think" and then he said "no, its maths". wtf!Rhys Benjamin wrote:No we haven't.Soph K wrote:i think soRhys Benjamin wrote:Have we ever had a duel in Spoilage?
Ha, yep exactly. Although I was searching YouTube for a clip from Only Fools and Horses where Trigger says "why ask?". It's clearly not that famous a clip to get onto YouTube but it sticks in my memory as being quite funny!Mark James wrote:If you knew the answer why did you ask? That's really annoying. When I was in school someone asked me what class did we have next. I said "not sure, english I think" and then he said "no, its maths". wtf!
LikeSoph K wrote:yeah totally agree with you both - wth rhys, why ask something you know the answer to? and dont say that you looked it up on apterous after you asked the question because i'd only say "why ask something then look it up when you already know you can look it up?" TBH its so dumb its funny lol. honestly...i worry about you sometimes!
I have, what is your idea for numbers and conundrums?Rhys Benjamin wrote:Has ANYONE read the scoring request yet^?
Yes, It's awful. All it would do is give me another reason not to play spoilage.Rhys Benjamin wrote:Has ANYONE read the scoring request yet^?
Yes, I read it but thought it was so stupid that you must have meant it as a joke. Now I realise you were being serious, I think it's probably your silliest idea yet (although competition in this area is pretty fierce).Rhys Benjamin wrote:Has ANYONE read the scoring request yet^?
I thought the none-response from people kind of hinted what was collectively thought. It's fucking shit (as everyone else has said). There is absolutely no point to it whatsoever.Rhys Benjamin wrote:Has ANYONE read the scoring request yet^?
It's the sort of scoring system I would expect to come from someone whose views on voting systems are likely to be suspect!!!Ryan Taylor wrote:I thought the none-response from people kind of hinted what was collectively thought. It's fucking shit (as everyone else has said). There is absolutely no point to it whatsoever.Rhys Benjamin wrote:Has ANYONE read the scoring request yet^?
Gev, I strongly disagree with everything quoted above. I would prefer most Duels to have a mix of L, N and C rounds, with only very occasional Conundrum Attacks, Numbers Attacks, or Letters Attacks. Although ultimately, regardless of what I'd personally enjoy the most, I would like the Duels to be the best compromise to please as many apterous users as possible. And considering that we had a survey on Duels a year or so ago, I imagine this goal is already satisfied, even though it's not perfectly tuned to a Numbers expert like yourself, or a Letters/Conundrum enthusiast like me.Gavin Chipper wrote:I think it would be a good idea to have a numbers only duel once a week (which can be any variant). It's probably come up before, but I'd probably have fewer conundrums in most of the duels. I find it a bit annoying when I think I'm doing quite well and then a conundrum comes along and can make or break (usually break) the whole thing. So I'd have no conundrums at all most of the time (certainly lots of the time anyway). I think you could polarise it a bit more so that you either have no conundrums or loads of them.
Although numbers is my preferred type of round, my point was meant to be more general than just "Have more numbers-based duels" and that we could have more duels that are heavily weighted in any direction rather than all duels being quite similar.Matt Bayfield wrote:Gev, I strongly disagree with everything quoted above. I would prefer most Duels to have a mix of L, N and C rounds, with only very occasional Conundrum Attacks, Numbers Attacks, or Letters Attacks. Although ultimately, regardless of what I'd personally enjoy the most, I would like the Duels to be the best compromise to please as many apterous users as possible. And considering that we had a survey on Duels a year or so ago, I imagine this goal is already satisfied, even though it's not perfectly tuned to a Numbers expert like yourself, or a Letters/Conundrum enthusiast like me.Gavin Chipper wrote:I think it would be a good idea to have a numbers only duel once a week (which can be any variant). It's probably come up before, but I'd probably have fewer conundrums in most of the duels. I find it a bit annoying when I think I'm doing quite well and then a conundrum comes along and can make or break (usually break) the whole thing. So I'd have no conundrums at all most of the time (certainly lots of the time anyway). I think you could polarise it a bit more so that you either have no conundrums or loads of them.
As for there being too many Conundrums and not enough Numbers, Statland suggests that of the 6million+ rounds played on apterous, Letters rounds account for 58% of all rounds, and Numbers rounds and Conundrums each represent 21%. What I find interesting here is that the %ages for Numbers and Conundrums are the same. When you bear in mind that in the most popular format (a normal 15-rounder), the ratio of N:C is 3:1, then outside of 15-rounders, a lot of apterous users are going out of their way to play Conundrum-heavy formats rather than Numbers-heavy formats.
forgive me if im being thick but i dont really know what you mean......?Gavin Chipper wrote:I think you could have comments allowed on more pages - e.g. duel results.
I think what he would like is comments allowed on more pages.Soph K wrote:forgive me if im being thick but i dont really know what you mean......?Gavin Chipper wrote:I think you could have comments allowed on more pages - e.g. duel results.
oh right. i think i get it.Ian Volante wrote:I think what he would like is comments allowed on more pages.Soph K wrote:forgive me if im being thick but i dont really know what you mean......?Gavin Chipper wrote:I think you could have comments allowed on more pages - e.g. duel results.
Soph K wrote:"why ask something then look it up when you already know you can look it up?"
Yeah it would be nice, unfortunately it's a reasonable amount of hassle to add it to different types of pages so I've focussed on the most popular ones.Gavin Chipper wrote:I think you could have comments allowed on more pages - e.g. duel results.
a-lol, i have to admit, that is quite funny!Charlie Reams wrote:Soph K wrote:"why ask something then look it up when you already know you can look it up?"
I think this would actually be quite cool (i know i'm late, i've been on hoiday!) and if you don't want to play it, then don't! Actually this would be a great way to encourage mistakesRhys Benjamin wrote:How about a scoring variant where you multiply the number of letters by itself to get the points? (i.e. 1-letter-words score 1 point (cos 1 x 1 = 1), 2-letter words score 4 points (cos 2 x 2 = 4) etc.) This would encourage people to go for longer words to get a greater points differential and this would encourage mistakes! Especially if someone needs 81 points from a dodgy 9, pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis would be now worth 2,025 points! This is amazing!
Not a bad idea actually.Steve Balog wrote:I have a bit of a bizarre idea for a new format. It came to me when I caught one of those "[name] got a 9 from GANDISEEG, can you?" messages in chat and got the answer, but realised that if I didn't know there was a 9 I'd never have declared it from the selection.
It works just like a normal game, scoring and all but with one difference: There's an indicator on screen that, after the selection, tells you whether or not a 9 is possible with the selection. I definitely attack conundrums differently from typical letters, so that knowledge might cause a player to attack a letters set differently, for better or worse.
Numbers works similarly: The indicators, after the numbers are selected, tells you whether the target is exactly obtainable or not.
Conundrums are the same. No way to adapt this idea to those rounds.
I don't know, I might be drunk off my ass and this is a fucking idiotic idea (with coding issues, to boot) but I'd figure there's no harm in throwing it out there.
The %age of rounds where there is actually a 9 being what it is might make this a little redundant though because it's so similar to the regular format.Steve Balog wrote:I have a bit of a bizarre idea for a new format. It came to me when I caught one of those "[name] got a 9 from GANDISEEG, can you?" messages in chat and got the answer, but realised that if I didn't know there was a 9 I'd never have declared it from the selection.
It works just like a normal game, scoring and all but with one difference: There's an indicator on screen that, after the selection, tells you whether or not a 9 is possible with the selection. I definitely attack conundrums differently from typical letters, so that knowledge might cause a player to attack a letters set differently, for better or worse.
Numbers works similarly: The indicators, after the numbers are selected, tells you whether the target is exactly obtainable or not.
Conundrums are the same. No way to adapt this idea to those rounds.
I don't know, I might be drunk off my ass and this is a fucking idiotic idea (with coding issues, to boot) but I'd figure there's no harm in throwing it out there.
Yeah I still like this idea, but it would be pretty difficult to actually implement.Jon O'Neill wrote:The %age of rounds where there is actually a 9 being what it is might make this a little redundant though because it's so similar to the regular format.Steve Balog wrote:I have a bit of a bizarre idea for a new format. It came to me when I caught one of those "[name] got a 9 from GANDISEEG, can you?" messages in chat and got the answer, but realised that if I didn't know there was a 9 I'd never have declared it from the selection.
It works just like a normal game, scoring and all but with one difference: There's an indicator on screen that, after the selection, tells you whether or not a 9 is possible with the selection. I definitely attack conundrums differently from typical letters, so that knowledge might cause a player to attack a letters set differently, for better or worse.
Numbers works similarly: The indicators, after the numbers are selected, tells you whether the target is exactly obtainable or not.
Conundrums are the same. No way to adapt this idea to those rounds.
I don't know, I might be drunk off my ass and this is a fucking idiotic idea (with coding issues, to boot) but I'd figure there's no harm in throwing it out there.
However, it does give rise to an idea that may have been mentioned already on here.. that you get told the max as soon as the ninth letter appears, and then conundrum rules take over with the first person getting a word of that length winning the round.
Touchbling and touchblind, how would they work? (Or did you just mean Touchblind, not Touchbling?)Thomas Carey wrote:I have an idea for a letters (maybe you could join it on to Nasty Letters) where each letter has an equal chance of appearing and there is no limit to how many of each letter come out. (Obviously you can still pick vowels and consonants.)
Also: Touchbling?
EDIT: Touchblind!
That's pretty much the case with Touchdown already, there's a slightly greater weight on the nice letters just to make it interesting but the distribution is pretty flat overall.Thomas Carey wrote:I have an idea for a letters (maybe you could join it on to Nasty Letters) where each letter has an equal chance of appearing and there is no limit to how many of each letter come out. (Obviously you can still pick vowels and consonants.)
Yes, I just meant touchblind. (Touchbling was a typo)Soph K wrote:Touchbling and touchblind, how would they work? (Or did you just mean Touchblind, not Touchbling?)Thomas Carey wrote:I have an idea for a letters (maybe you could join it on to Nasty Letters) where each letter has an equal chance of appearing and there is no limit to how many of each letter come out. (Obviously you can still pick vowels and consonants.)
Also: Touchbling?
EDIT: Touchblind!
Right, well how would Touchblind work? What is it cross between? Touchdown and...?Thomas Carey wrote:Yes, I just meant touchblind. (Touchbling was a typo)Soph K wrote:Touchbling and touchblind, how would they work? (Or did you just mean Touchblind, not Touchbling?)Thomas Carey wrote:I have an idea for a letters (maybe you could join it on to Nasty Letters) where each letter has an equal chance of appearing and there is no limit to how many of each letter come out. (Obviously you can still pick vowels and consonants.)
Also: Touchbling?
EDIT: Touchblind!
lol course but what is blind???Thomas Carey wrote:Err... blind?