Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 WombatBreath

WombatBreath

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3117 posts

Posted 13 April 2011 - 05:55 AM

Ladies and gentlemen,
Although we may have the best of intentions, to play well together, misunderstandings and disagreements are always possible. In a game this is even more likely if there is ambiguity in the rules and so I'd suggest that we identify the rules that we want to govern this game (and then restart it).
The Sixy Rollo thread was only setup for a variant of Rollo and the identified issues aren't unique to this variant but as this is a much younger thread maybe its easier to change the rules or effectively restart the thread entirely.
I propose that we tighten up the rules definitions that apply to it, so that everyone can feel that they know where they stand when playing.

When this Sixy Rollo thread was started there was some concern that the host might be unduly advantaged by the increase to six letter words, but after several rounds I think that the existing points regime still seems to be reasonably balanced. I'd propose that we open up the word length so that the new host can freely choose the word length.

Proposed New (Free) Rollo Rules
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Someone thinks of a # letter word and posts a prompt for people to start guessing "?????? (# letters)".
The word to be guessed should be recognizably 'English' and proper nouns should be avoided but some names are arguably generic enough to qualify. To be practical, a suggested word length is between 4 and 14 letters.

People begin by guessing # letter words with the following limitations:
* You may only guess 1 word in a post, with an optional proof for one or more letters using either existing scored words or predicted scores for as yet unscored words including the new word;
* Any number of qualified or unqualified proofs may be provided in a post BUT only one new word;
* Guesses must also be words although proper nouns are allowed; AND
* You must allow a gap of 2 minutes between successive posts to allow an opportunity for other guessers. The host will not consider more frequent posts.

When a word is guessed, the host puts a number next to the word signifying how many letters were in the correct position. You cannot 'win' by just guessing some of the right letters though, to earn points you must either:
* "logick" one of the letters via an explanation of why that letter has to be logically 100% in that position; OR
* correctly identify the entire word.

It is the responsibility of the host to ensure that guesses are valid (see rules above) and that "logick" explanations (proofs) really are complete. Note that we are all human so the host may need some help.

When the host accepts a "logick" explanation, a question-mark is replaced with that letter ( ???Z?? ) and the person that posted the "logick" for the letter gets 5 points per proven letter. When the final letter is "logicked", or a player posts the entire word as a guess then that player gets 10 points for the final letter instead of the usual 5. The host is awarded 1 point per guessed word and 5 points per incorrectly "logicked" letter/position.
  • 0

#2 Thalia

Thalia

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2910 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 13 April 2011 - 10:59 PM

Looks good to me.
  • 0

Come check out Mafia in the Games Forum
Trainer's Manual Mafia XII: Bugs Mafia is in signups
Other games:
The Green Glass Doors
Telephone


#3 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 April 2011 - 11:20 PM

I will agree to these rules but wish to add another stipulation. IF there is a dispute, The host has the final say but then afterword all may make their arguments and a new rule will be formed. If it contradicts or is in any way different than what the host decided, it will not afftect that game only those that come after.

just trying to avoid any future animosity here :)
  • 0

#4 Maquis

Maquis

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1458 posts

Posted 14 April 2011 - 01:31 PM

I like the new rules. I've always disliked being able to guess multiple words in 1 post. It's just not fair to other contestants and this is supposed to be a fun diversion for our minds, not a serious all out competition to see who can rack up the most points.

As far as fair scoring is concerned, I have 2 ideas there. Let's see what others think.

1. Cap the amount of points the host can earn. Maybe 20 points per words or 30? If I'm hosting, I could pick an obscure 12 letter word and really rack up the points. Then again we thought the 6 letter rollo words would earn the host more points than 5 letters and it turned out that the host got fewer. If that holds true for longer words then no need for a cap.

2. Ditch the scoring altogether. Works fine for masterword and copying the scoring for Rollo does get tedious with all the folks on the list that played for 1 or 2 games a year ago and never came back. If we keep the scoring then I say that if you're not active in the game for more than 3 months, your score is erased from the standings.

Now, for a new rule proposal. Perhaps this could be a variant Rollo thread. A while back someone (I think it was Curr3nt, but I could be wrong) hosted a game with a different scoring. You got 1 point for a letter in the correct position and .5 points for a letter that was 1 off the correct position. It made the logic harder and confuzzled most of the computer programs :lol: however for the word he choose we scored a lot of 0's which eliminated words faster and it was guessed in 5 or 6 tries. Might be an interesting derivation.

Or if we do ditch the scoring we could go with a system where the host chooses how words are scored. Traditional 1 point per correct position or new .5 for 1 off scoring, or something else unique that the host thinks up.
  • 0

#5 WombatBreath

WombatBreath

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3117 posts

Posted 14 April 2011 - 10:58 PM

Nice input Maquis - I really like the idea of adding more flexibility in both the word length and the letter scoring that the host applies and I also like the idea of getting rid of participant scoring altogether.
My proposal above was just a minimal change approach whereas these variations would make it more different to the existing rollo thread.
Hopefully, if there is less focus on long term competition (without maintained scoring) there will tend to be more people participating occasionally and more interesting variations on letter scoring tried out.
  • 0

#6 unreality

unreality

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6370 posts

Posted 15 April 2011 - 03:54 AM

Looks good to me too (not that I really play rollo anymore lol, its momentum kind of drives itself now). But I do like the variation in letter length since I feel like most interesting 5-letter words will probably start getting recycled fairly soon.
  • 0

#7 plainglazed

plainglazed

    Abuse of PoWers

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:nc us

Posted 15 April 2011 - 04:37 PM

glad to see unreality has chimed in as it's his thread afterall. maybe a new topic for the MasterRollo variable letter length is in order. or not. also really like Maquis idea of dropping the scoring and WbB's point that it might possibly be intimidating/impeding new participants.
  • 0

#8 maurice

maurice

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3612 posts

Posted 15 April 2011 - 05:49 PM

I won't be the grump, and will agree to go along as UR and PG have voiced their opinions...but can I just get to 2000 before we get rid of scoring?


  • 0

#9 fabpig

fabpig

    Prominent Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2423 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cumbria, England

Posted 16 April 2011 - 02:01 AM

I Guess this thread wouldn't be going if I hadn't opened my big fat gob, so my two penn'orth, sorry two cents worth is -

I see no problem with some sort of scoring system. Whereas this is not fundamental to the game, it gives an edge of competitiveness (but - it is only a game)

Nobody allowed to make multiple guesses

Nobody allowed to make 2 or more consecutive posts (unless non-relevant to the game)

It's a democracy - majority makes the rules. I will abide with that, and so will everybody else, or I'll send the boys round.

Just as an aside.... I used to play this mmmm years ago, and when logicking, you had to provide a positive outcome (ie, input at least one letter to the word) when giving the logic. As there were only a few of us playing, and not restricted by distance, I'm not sure if this would work, but it's worth a thought.

If you're reading this curr3nt, don't leave us, we need your tithead sense of humour. (plus you're a pretty clever guy)

Edited by fabpig, 16 April 2011 - 02:03 AM.

  • 0

You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,  nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.  Sydney Smith.


#10 maurice

maurice

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3612 posts

Posted 16 April 2011 - 02:30 AM

One thing fab, I'd add. If there is a significant lull (hours, days, idk) one should be allowed to double poat. OW, the game could stagnate.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users