30 replies to this topic

[Aaryan]

I think the only way of adding these rules is to use it in SIXY (and SEVENY) ROLLO.make that 9 responses, WB (whoa same nickname as WritersBlock)

[WombatBreath]

Hi All - In an attempt to facilitate I'll summarise the majority opinion, how I see it, so far. If any of this appears inaccurate or biased just post away (no offense intended or taken).
I think that we have some clear outcomes from the 9 voters so far (with a viable approach for a split vote)...

NEW THREAD has majority vote of the options
WORDS - To be valid both answers & guesses must be in nominated dictionaries (answers may not be proper noun)
SCORING - Standard (5/logicked letter, bonus 5/final letter, 1/guess for host)
SCORE CAPS - Cap of 30 for both host and guessers
CLUE POINTS - split vote so suggest we document the standard and curr3nt systems in any Opening Post and allow host to nominate
MULTIPLE GUESSES - allowed in a single post ONLY if no clue points exist for any guesses
MULTIPLE SUCCESSIVE GUESS POSTS - Restricted = the posts must be at least 2 minutes apart
PROOFS - any number of letter proofs are allowed in a single post

I'd suggest that if we don't get any significant variations to this in the next week or so that we implement these as rules in a new thread.

Cheers WbB

[Maquis]

I have a question about the nominated dictionaries. Merriam Webster is fine but the Oxford dictionary requires a subscription in order to search it. I won't be buying anything to participate here and I don't own an unabridged Oxford.

I certainly won't be picking any obscure words if I'm hosting but I also don't want to have to subscribe to verify obscure guesses from players.

[WombatBreath]

Merriam Webster is fine but the Oxford dictionary requires a subscription in order to search it.

You actually only need a sub to search the thesaurus and antonyms - the normal dictionary does not require subscription to search.

[WombatBreath]

BTW - talking of dictionaries...
plainglazed nominated http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ which seems like a perfectly fine alternative to Merriam-Webster and Oxford as far as I can see.
AFAIK all three are available completely free (without subscription) for dictionary searching so they should suit our validation needs for the game.

[JDave]

I just noticed that picante shows up as misspelled in my Firefox browser. I had been wondering about word choice anyway so it is a good time to bring it up. Is picante a common enough word? I understand having some bizarre words show up in the guesses, but I also imagine that the general rule of thumb is to have some relatively common word for the word-to-be-guessed? I wondered about kebab earlier, too. And I couldn't have guessed coccoid without having almost all the letters figured out.

For instance I thought to use PIQUANT (close relative to picante) but decided that it probably isn't a common enough word. Is that a good call, or would piquant be a perfectly wonderful word to use?

Of course with something like Rollo Ninja, the question is perhaps moot. All words are known and even searchable. Even a website like www.onelook.com somewhat changes things.

Anyway, that's my musings at the moment.

[maurice]

If its a valid word use it...however due to the rising use of programs I have stayed away some from words that can be quickly narrowed down by a lucky guess or two. COCCOID I felt would have been difficult to guess CC so I took a chance with it...to me part of the fun is trying to come up with a word that will score you some points.

[JDave]

I was thinking about the scoring a bit. Perhaps it would be better to set a cap on the score obtainable from guessing the word correctly. This would put more weight on the points obtained from proving letters, which seems to be a major portion of the game.

For instance, if 7-Rollo results in zero letters proved and then the word properly guessed the winner would get 40 points. If the score was limited to 10 points for the final guess, then it might be worthwhile to prove some letters first. It would put a bit more strategy on when to try and guess the final word, thus eliminating anyone else getting points from guessing letters, and when to take the time to prove out some letters.

Thoughts ?

[maurice]

I was thinking about the scoring a bit. Perhaps it would be better to set a cap on the score obtainable from guessing the word correctly. This would put more weight on the points obtained from proving letters, which seems to be a major portion of the game.

For instance, if 7-Rollo results in zero letters proved and then the word properly guessed the winner would get 40 points. If the score was limited to 10 points for the final guess, then it might be worthwhile to prove some letters first. It would put a bit more strategy on when to try and guess the final word, thus eliminating anyone else getting points from guessing letters, and when to take the time to prove out some letters.

Thoughts ?

I like it, but be mindful that there are those who prefer finding the words and not proving the letters...

additionally though, if they know the word they should try to prove it first via letters...

[WombatBreath]

I was thinking about the scoring a bit. Perhaps it would be better to set a cap on the score obtainable from guessing the word correctly. This would put more weight on the points obtained from proving letters, which seems to be a major portion of the game.

For instance, if 7-Rollo results in zero letters proved and then the word properly guessed the winner would get 40 points. If the score was limited to 10 points for the final guess, then it might be worthwhile to prove some letters first. It would put a bit more strategy on when to try and guess the final word, thus eliminating anyone else getting points from guessing letters, and when to take the time to prove out some letters.

Agree - this would encourage proofs over just outright guessing.
This also appears to be more in keeping with unreality's original thread/op; in that it was never stated that the guesser of the whole word was entitled to the points as if all letters had been individually proven.

The scoring rule could then be stated as:
SCORING - Standard (5/logicked letter & 10/complete word for Guessers, 1/incorrect guess & 5/flawed logick for Host)
rather than being...
SCORING - Standard (5/logicked letter, bonus 5/final letter, 1/guess for host)
...as it is now (which was also missing the flawed logick points)
OK?

P.S. Must be about time to implement this isn't it?
This poll/thread has been going for over 6 weeks.

Edited by WombatBreath, 28 May 2011 - 02:21 AM.