Viewing Page 12 of 23 (Total Entries: 2239) |
![]() |
|
May 28th 2004 at 03:32:46 PM |
|
Name: |
Yoni Roll |
Comments: |
Conrgats Roman! 50 is great inderdaad (=indeed ![]() |
![]() |
|
May 28th 2004 at 02:59:29 PM |
|
Name: |
Stephen |
Comments: |
oh my word roman, that's amazing! 50 seconds that was a nice board, i'd like the video if you have it. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 28th 2004 at 01:46:34 PM |
|
Name: |
James C |
Comments: |
Nice Job Roman. And congrats to Gustaf, too. @Gustaf: Nice videos on your site. It always gives me hope to see sub-20s by someone who flags as much as I do. Don't worry Dave, I will be checking out those times. Gotta be prepared, you know. Now if I can just finish a game of expert today. Oh yeah, if anybody cares, I got a 2 on the clone last night. It was my third 2, but the first one on an 8x8 board. It was a crappy 3bv of 2 though and it took me way too long to find the other space.. oh well. |
![]() |
|
May 28th 2004 at 01:35:59 PM |
|
Name: |
Roman Gammel |
Best expert: |
52 --> 50!!! |
Best intermediate: |
13 |
Best beginner: |
1 |
Comments: |
YEAH!! I beat my expert record again!!! 3BV 129 (3BV/s 2,60) http://gammel.pisem.net/50s.png |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 28th 2004 at 12:57:59 PM |
|
Name: |
Dave Matson |
Best expert: |
83 x 2 |
Best intermediate: |
22 |
Best beginner: |
3 |
Comments: |
@ Ian: Don't worry about the high times. Your times will drop as long as you keep playing! Just keep at it, you'll see! ![]() ![]() @ all: I updated my webpage to include some recent exp and int scores, if you want to see some slow times! ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 28th 2004 at 12:50:12 PM |
|
Name: |
Ian |
Best expert: |
246 |
Best intermediate: |
67 |
Best beginner: |
2 |
Comments: |
Well I thought I'd post here. As you can see from my scores, I'm not very good, and don't seem to be improving much. In fact, I was doing much worse, then I realised that Rodrigo's clone has a smaller beginner board than the MS version. On intermediate and expert, I'm still just as good (or bad ![]() Anyway, I just wanted to say hi. Hi! Ian |
![]() |
|
May 28th 2004 at 09:27:18 AM |
|
Name: |
Gustaf Forsman |
Best expert: |
62*3 --> 59 |
Comments: |
Finally made the sub-minute!! ![]() Now i have to work on my site so i can put it up there ![]() Happy sweeping som fan ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 28th 2004 at 04:25:03 AM |
|
Name: |
Dave Morgan |
Comments: |
The original allows boards with 3bv of one (after a shift anyway, even if not normally), so I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed in the clone (and anyway, since beginner isn't used in AR anymore, and since it doesn't make that much difference in the best ever, it's not really that important) |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 28th 2004 at 02:21:06 AM |
|
Name: |
Christoph Marx |
Best beginner: |
1 |
Comments: |
I just got a 1. But like Roman's it was achieved on a 3BV=1 board on the clone. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 28th 2004 at 01:07:09 AM |
|
Name: |
James C |
Comments: |
Okay, so I got a 44 tonight. Here's another thing that I don't particularly care for about the clone: It doesn't happen often, but it screws up videos/scores (timer) at the most inappropriate times. I realize it's a bug or flaw, and I am sure it is being looked at, but it is annoying. I was sweeping along at a pretty good pace and I would swear that I clocked something in the mid to upper 80's and the box pops up 44.01. Now I have to reset my scores. The video is pretty funny, though. Normal play for 43 seconds and the bam, clears the whole board. You may have lucked out there Dave. Darn if it wasn't the only game I have finished tonight, too. Oh well, what can you do. |
![]() |
|
May 27th 2004 at 05:17:29 PM |
|
Name: |
James C. |
Comments: |
I am at 26-93 right now. Which is good sort of, because my minimum goal was 119. I probably won't play much more intermediate until I get a game in the solid 80's, so the 26 may stand. But then again, I have a four day week-end and a fair idea of what I need to beat. |
![]() |
|
May 27th 2004 at 04:29:46 PM |
|
Name: |
Dave Matson (again) |
Comments: |
Actually James, just now, the first game after I made that last post, I just got an 88.00. hehe ![]() |
![]() |
|
May 27th 2004 at 04:26:35 PM |
|
Name: |
Dave Matson |
Comments: |
Hee hee. I am a raving double-clicker. You should see some of my exp games. I'll put some more up soon. What is your exp like for the AR so far. Mine is only at 91. I got 2 91's today. |
![]() |
|
May 27th 2004 at 04:20:31 PM |
|
Name: |
James C. |
Comments: |
I got a 2.22 last night on a 75. (34.79) I had a 2.30 I think, but all I know is the time was in the 40's. I have erased my history 3 or 4 times. Maybe Rodrigo needs to make a total stat list that incorporates with a purgable one so we can track every two weeks (hint hint) Anyway, I have been watching your videos, since I am trying to keep up with you in the AR. I say keep up, because I don't think my expert game is consistent enough to post another total that low for a litte while. We'll see, though. You want to know where you beat me? The double click count. Mine just sky rockets and I know it's slowing me down a lot especially in intermediate. Trying to work on that now, but it's hard to break habits, especially bad ones. |
![]() |
|
May 27th 2004 at 03:59:23 PM |
|
Name: |
Dave Matson |
Comments: |
See James, the clone isn't so bad! ![]() My best 3BV/sec on int is 2.53. My top 10 3BV/sec are all above 2.42 I think. Yeah, usually I find it hard to get above 2.00 or so if the 3BV is much lower than 70 too! What is your best 3BV/sec on int? |
![]() |
|
May 27th 2004 at 02:23:09 PM |
|
Name: |
James C. |
Best intermediate: |
28.99 ----> 27.06 ----> 26.24 |
Comments: |
New intermediate clone records. Just wanted to show you guys that I am preparing for the [seemingly] inevitable change. Dave, I finally saw your 22. Nice. What is your best 3bv/s on intermediate? I usually only crack 2.0 when the 3bv is over 70. |
![]() |
|
May 27th 2004 at 12:14:55 PM |
|
Name: |
Michael S. Repton |
Comments: |
Exactly. Anyone else keen on chess? It's been more than ten years now since there actually was a world chess champion, and even if they do reunify the title (some hope, after the number of failed attempts) it'll be a long time before things get back to the way they were. Breaking up the Minesweeper rankings like this would be an absolute disaster; not for the champion (in our case we all know who that is!) but for everyone else who wants to KNOW whether they're 78th or 244th. There won't be the same satisfaction in climbing places. You would lose a lot that is really worth hanging on to. Anyway, thanks to James I managed to find the polls and vote. You can probably tell which way I voted but I'm very glad that last time I looked we were winning. |
![]() |
|
May 27th 2004 at 07:17:53 AM |
|
Name: |
Dave Matson |
Comments: |
I'm not a big fan of having too many lists. Same thing with music lists, there are a thousand different top 40 lists out there. When there are too many lists which one is considered to be the "be-all-end-all" list? I could understand if there was a list for 3BV/sec and a list for best times because they are kind of comparing two different things. I think it might be redundant to have many different lists for best times though. I know that the only reason people want to have one list for the clone and one list for MS is because of the cheating, but can't we keep them in the same list? I think that having separate lists might create a divide in the community. As unpopular as it may be for some people, only accepting clone times might be the best solution. I wouldn't think that it would deter new players from joining either. Most people that join the community do so at a lower level of play and work their way up their ladder. They can start their way up the ladder with the clone. I think that very few people join the community already at the top of the ladder. I don't think that it makes us look like we're this snotty, elite group either. New people that join would just realize that, to have their times accepted, they would need clone videos. I am kind of torn on this issue, because I think that only accepting clone times is the only way that we can assure that all times are legit. I also really like the fact that we meet under a basis of trust and informality, and I wouldn't want to have that ruined. I'm afraid that by having all these restrictions, minesweeper might become more of a job, and less of a hobby. I don't know everyone, just some thoughts I had! ![]() |
![]() |
|
May 27th 2004 at 04:05:56 AM |
|
Name: |
Jon S |
Comments: |
BTW: Having a database full of videos and statistics might possibly require a lot of "web space". I don't know if that is possible to get without having to pay a lot? |
![]() |
|
May 27th 2004 at 04:02:17 AM |
|
Name: |
Jon S |
Comments: |
I like the news about Rodrigo making a web-site for submition of clone scores. I think the idea about having more than one list sounds good. When Rodrigo has finished the work with the site, it might become a popular place for submitting video files from the clone. Unless anyone are having problems recording videos with the clone, I would suggest that the player would need to upload videos of their records to the site somehow. I picture the site as a kind of database with people's videos and statistics, but that is up to Rodrigo to decide, of course. This doesn't mean that the old rankings should just be tossed away though. One issue we might consider, is if we want to include different lists on the same site. This could for example enable people to view the lists with or without non-clone scores, scores without proof etc. The alternative is to have a separate ranking. The parts we might want to keep, is the rankings before people started playing the clone and somewhere where beginners and other people can submit scores that were not achieved using the clone (with or without proof). If a newcomer would find it motivating being on such a "B-list" might be questionable, but maybe they are willing to switch to the clone straigth away? I told you that I was going to say some words about the Active Ranking. I imagine that it could be included some feature on Rodrigo's new site where people are being ranked by their clone scores (weekly, bi-weekly, monthly or whatever), where stats are made (during and) at the end of each season. This could possibly be made more "automatised" than the ranking we have now. If we require videos or not, should be discussed. We might of course keep the original Active Ranking, and maybe even try to give that ranking a higher status so that people can continue enjoying the "honor system" (if we decide to demand videos for the other ranking). |
![]() |
|
May 26th 2004 at 04:53:36 PM |
|
Name: |
Robert Benditz |
Comments: |
Hi Curtis It is a great gesture to offer your help to Rigo!! That is what I have been hoping, but I would not have asked you to give up on your clone-project. I think you two should definitely work together to some degree ![]() ![]() I hope it will work out .. ![]() ![]() Bye Hopsing |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 26th 2004 at 03:27:43 PM |
|
Name: |
Curtis Bright |
Comments: |
Hi everyone. I'm not sure if my opinions count for anything but here they are... I've said since the beginning that times from clones can't be compared to times from the original with complete accuracy. I think you should just create a new set of rankings specifically for the clone. I did something similar with my clone although I didn't get many submissions. (But I'd like to thank Roland Seibt and David Morgan for sending in their times.) Rodrigo's clone has lots of great extra features, and seems to be widely used, so I don't think I need to develop my clone anymore. I've moved on to some different projects and have some others in mind (some are minesweeper related). With the detailed statistics and the online play (although I haven't tried it) it is really a great program. ![]() Since you've decided to accept times from Rodrigo's clone, then it only makes sense for you to accept Roli's time from my clone as well. Internally, both clones were written in VB, both use the same randomizer, and use the same algorithm to generate boards. The timer is more than accurate enough. I have no doubts that Roli played a fair game and his time should be counted in my opinion. It's a pretty big step to for the entire community to switch exclusively to Rodrigo's clone, but it does seem like a fair way to me. Although, as Yoni Roll points out, this puts a lot of importance on the clone and it should be completely secure. If Rodrigo does want to have a few programmer aides (and I fully understand if he doesn't) then I'd be willing to do as much as I can to help. |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 26th 2004 at 12:38:15 PM |
|
Name: |
Michael |
Comments: |
No, that was just an idea that now I think about it is wrong. Hmm, maybe I do prefer Katy's suggested solution after all. |
![]() |
|
May 26th 2004 at 12:27:29 PM |
|
Name: |
James C |
Comments: |
Actually now that I posted, I think he means that anybody that could break a WR with UPK could also go sub-15. I am personally inclined to agree. |
![]() |
|
May 26th 2004 at 12:24:53 PM |
|
Name: |
James C |
Comments: |
Okay, I have calmed down, so I feel I can post here without going overboard. @Katy: You are right, swithching to the clone for only sub-15s wouldn't do much. The clone requirement for every score would cut down on UPK, but with a 15 cut off, I could still theoretically post a 16 or 17 on the dreamboard. (Although I already publicly agreed not to do so) @Michael: Going with what I said above, UPK has nothing to do with ability. The first time I got the dreamboard it was a fair game. I didn't recognize the board until it was over. Shortly after that I started posting here and I learned about the clone. So I replayed the board a few times to see how fast I could play it. I didn't know it was a frowned upon to do so. I have sufficient knowledge of the board to go sub-15 if I got it again, but that doesn't mean I am close to sub-20 at all. Other than that, very good points. You should start submitting times to the AR if you haven't already. The main reason I replied here is because both of you are hinting at something that I think is important for everyone. I would like to see more people in the AR. It may shove me down a few spots, but I would rather be 50th of 60 than 39th of 42, or however it comes out. This situation needs to be solved, but all these discussions could be disuading someone who otherwise might post scores. I don't want to see that, nor do I want to drop out of the community. Just hope everyone is considering all that. |
![]() |
|
May 26th 2004 at 12:14:58 PM |
|
Name: |
Yoni Roll |
Comments: |
I'm not sure i understood the question, moving to the clone will prevent UPK because it solves the two problems of the original version- it doesn't have cycles and the boards are better randomized, i.e. boards will not repeat, like the DB does and all other less recognized boards. Michael, "most people who know enough to get UPK times are likely to also be good enough to get sub-15", why is that? Everyone can get UPK times by memorizing a board i think. |
![]() |
|
May 26th 2004 at 11:06:01 AM |
|
Name: |
Michael |
Comments: |
I guess that firstly, it stops the actual world record being a UPK score; secondly, most people who know enough to get UPK times are likely to also be good enough to get sub-15; thirdly, it keeps the ranking list open to newcomers, which as you said is extremely important for the spirit of the community. (I certainly want my times to be accepted when I make the rankings... so close....) |
![]() |
|
May 26th 2004 at 10:38:33 AM |
|
Name: |
Katy LaVallee |
Comments: |
i guess i just don't understand what specific Problems switching to the clone for records below a certain time would Solve. i don't understand at all how it solves the problem of UPK. |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 26th 2004 at 09:49:18 AM |
|
Name: |
Dave Matson |
Comments: |
As you can see, I'm hard at work today. ![]() I think that the really good sweepers should keep videos of their best times. Not because I need to see them for proof, but because I really enjoy watching videos of great times! It is a duty of being that good! ![]() |
![]() |
|
May 26th 2004 at 09:29:44 AM |
|
Name: |
Yoni Roll |
Comments: |
btw I wanted to mention that this shouldn't be a strict bureaucratic system, we can always discuss private cases and exceptions. Also the honor system is not changed i think, we shouldn't demand video proff from people for every record (for sub 15 etc. we probably should though, unless it was dnoe by someone totally trustworthy but they will probably release a video anyway), we just need to trust them that they really did the time on the clone. |
![]() |
|
May 26th 2004 at 08:42:34 AM |
|
Name: |
Yoni Roll |
Comments: |
"Instead of realizing that things are fair the way they are" "Such was the case with Dennis. In my mind, he didn't cheat" If everyone would play it this way, it will be fair indeed, and I (or others i think) am not accusing anyone of cheating, I might get a good score on the DB if i played it, without any intention to do so. The problem is that if you think memorizing board is ok, and you use it, then you are just playing a different game than me, and many others, which cannot have the same scores and records together in my opinion. Katy, I agree that it might be problematic for newcommers, maybe we should accept records from newcommers in the MS version until they can change to the clone. In case someone comes here with a 14 or such that would be a problem, but it seems not likely that someone who has 14 never found this site before, most of those were either cheating or get it with the timer bug without knowing. I also agree that it might be a little early to change to the clone exclusively although a whole year is not necessary imo. Maybe we should wait a little longer until the clone is more "polished", but not too long. The original version have known bugs too anyway, but the problem is that while on the original version we probably already know about all of the bugs, we might not know some bugs that exist on the clone. This again brings me to the point that we might want some other programmers to have a look on the source code. |
![]() |
|
May 26th 2004 at 08:36:57 AM |
|
Name: |
Dave Matson |
Comments: |
@ Roli: What version of the clone are you using? |
![]() |
|
May 26th 2004 at 07:07:50 AM |
|
Name: |
James C |
Comments: |
Michael, the poll is on the yahoo group Minsweeperaddicts. I had to ask myself. Go check it out. I hear what you are preaching Roli. Good luck. |
![]() |
|
May 26th 2004 at 04:21:32 AM |
|
Name: |
Roli |
Best expert: |
54 |
Best intermediate: |
9 |
Best beginner: |
2 |
Comments: |
Hi Sweepers, so, if you like to erase my int record I will have to agree doing so. This is or maybe will be a change of rules in the next weeks and it is no big problem for me obeying to them. But: I would have to insist on not counting Matt's 10, because my 9 was also not using bad board cycling. That started with Steffen Stachna who was ****** and furthermore tried to show the community what can be possible. Also his 1 on beginner was achieved this way. So if you change the rules it has to be either no memorizing of boards or no using of cycles. Think about it. Also I beg at Rodrigo to remove the XP-lag somehow and make his game faster so that I won't have to stop playing in the future. |
![]() |
|
May 26th 2004 at 03:33:34 AM |
|
Name: |
Michael S. Repton |
Best intermediate: |
22 |
Best beginner: |
2 |
Comments: |
@Dave: I guess so! Maybe we should celebrate by meeting up some time? Also, where can I find these polls that everyone is talking about? (Or am I too much of a newbie to be allowed to participate - if you think so I really don't mind?) |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 06:54:42 PM |
|
Name: |
James C. |
Comments: |
OKay, I can't hold back, I'm weak. But I still have a few people that I need to try and make things right with. Dave I have said that in the past. Maybe it's my fault because of the way I have come across. I think that knowing the board because you have played it before, or because it is just that familiar is okay. Such was the case with Dennis. In my mind, he didn't cheat, and I am sure no one accused him of such. I also said that I realize people cheat. Practicing a board is questionable at best, but hitting F2 and only laying the board you are looking for is wrong. I realize that it is hard to trust people not to abuse it, but I also said that I think the people who do so are easy to spot. If I can't break 100, but I post a 15, I would expect to be questioned. I don't know what the answer to all this is, either. All I know is that I want to participate in the Rankings for my own motivation. I just don't want to be told that I have to play the clone. People have said they think the game is more fun when it's more random. Well I think it's more fun when I can break 30 every night instead of just once in a while on the clone. Is that really so bad? While I am on here, I want to apologize to Katy. I honestly was not directing the question about memory at her. I read her site and I thougt it was good and I was going to wait. I jumped the gun when people kept talking about it. I know it looked like a direct shot at her, so for that I am sorry. |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 06:26:59 PM |
|
Name: |
Dave Matson |
Comments: |
@ James: You mention that you're not talking about people that hit F2 a lot, or people that recognize board regeneration patterns. It sounds like you're against that. To me it sounds like you think it is fine if someone by chance gets a board that they've played before and gets a really good time on it. That may be the sentiment for many people. (Maybe even me, I haven't really formed an opinion on it yet....kind of a grey area.) I think that the issue many people have with the board regeneration though is the fact that people CAN practice and memorize entire boards to their heart's content (using the clone), and then when it comes up in a real game, use that knowledge to their advantage. I think that most people think that getting the same board twice by chance and doing really well might be okay, but the fact that the potential is there for people to abuse the clone and the board regeneration in the MS version is the scary thing. Well, maybe that's not how most people feel, but that's how I feel anyway. ![]() Good luck sweeping, all! ![]() |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 05:55:25 PM |
|
Name: |
James C. |
Comments: |
Okay, I know what I said, but bear with me one more time. Yoni's comment was sort of directed at me, so it's sort of like finishing my conversation with him. Plus, I have been thinking about this for a bit, and I think it might clarify why I seem to disagree with everyone else. This is not directed at anyone in particular. Here's why I think you fail to see the logic of my arguments. The problem is that there are a lot of people trying to play by a set of rules that have not been established. They are trying to preserve the nature of the game that is set by their own opinion. Some people are taking advantage of a system flaw. They are not breaking any rules, because there really are none. So, it is safe to say that they are playing within the rules. The first group of people feel that the second group has an unfair advantage, and I agree that it is only human nature to feel that way. Now, by my course of thinking, an intelligent person would also learn to take advantage of the system flaws. It's not cheating because there is no rule against it. I am not talking about hittin F2 over and over again, or practicing boards. I am talking about playing simple boards that you find randomly, yet they are so familiar that you have them memorized either sub-consciously or otherwise. In this case, everyone has the same advantage, and those that don't chose to take it are left out. However, that isn't the way everyone sees it. Instead of realizing that things are fair the way they are, people want to change it so that it is fair by "their own" opinion. It's only human nature. I have been guilty of it myself. I tend to not agree with people who want to make rules more strict. It goes against my rebellious nature. I have always had the attitude that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. We all know that you can't please everyone, so in my mind, the simplest solution is to let it be. Sorry if you don't see it that way. |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 05:34:25 PM |
|
Name: |
Katy LaVallee |
Comments: |
which brings me to... third-- the informality IS IMPORTANT TO A LOT OF PEOPLE. if there are those that wish for something more formal... then i believe the best solution is to have two separate lists. i think most people would participate and be involved in both. i don't think it would split us up. fourth-- yes i'm a sap. i like being a part of this community, and other online communities. i enjoy chatting with the friends i've made here. personally, i don't want it to get all stuffy. i think having formalized lists is a great idea. i'd like to see tons of lists. we all love statistics, and we all enjoy looking at them from different angles, and with different parameters, and with different sets. i just think that no matter what happens, it's still a good idea to keep our big happy informal list, too. |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 05:33:51 PM |
|
Name: |
Katy LaVallee |
Comments: |
keeping all this straight is so hard. first-- James C said: "How in the hell could a good memory be considered Unfair?" the list was only for *possibilities* that we may want to consider. personally, i don't think that particular item should stay on the list, but the in initial phase of group problem solving it's important to examine all the possibilities, and then some get tossed later. this particular possibility, i added to the list because of dennis... he said that's how he got his 11, and he decided maybe it shouldn't count. second-- i'd like to address the fact that the popular proposed solution of ridding the Best Ever of known UPK records AND using EXCLUSIVELY clone records for int thereafter fails to preserve (a) the honor system many of us love and (b) the easy acceptance of newcomers. in short, it makes us seem snotty to new people. not only does this solution not preserve these important aspects of our community, but it's also way too soon to consider accepting exclusively clone records, for any level. i'd say we need to wait at least A YEAR from when the clone times were first officially accepted before we even THINK about that. of course, there is talk that the two aforementioned aspects are an acceptable sacrifice, but that decision shouldn't be taken lightly. if someone feels that it is OBVIOUSLY an acceptable sacrifice, then they aren't being sensitive to the value others put on the community for different reasons. this community is valuable for it's informality. if we want one list, we'd have to choose whether or not to sacrifice that, but i think we'd lose people as well. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 05:11:33 PM |
|
Name: |
Dave Morgan |
Comments: |
@Michael S. Repton - it seems we both go to the same university, small world eh? |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 04:36:37 PM |
|
Name: |
Yoni Roll |
Comments: |
I mean both that James, and the general "mood" of your posts, it's hard to explain exactly, but you are very fast to "attack" people that don't agree with you. I fail to see the logic in your arguments. The "rules of minesweeper" were made to explain the game to a newbie in minesweeper and they does make a good set of rules for an advanced minesweeper community in my opinion. "It is expressly against published rules" That is exactly what i want the community to have- known rules that could be used instead of having the DB etc. discussion every time someone make a good time, until we continue ignoring the problem. |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 04:28:55 PM |
|
Name: |
James C. |
Comments: |
You know what? I think I am done. I am not going to post again on anything to do with board cycles, dream boards, or mandatory use of the clone. I you want my opinion on anything related to those subjects, ask, but that's it. I am getting tired of it already. I will stick to generic subjects about the play of the game. Hopefully that will satisfy everyone. I don't think I need to defend my position any further. Sweep it up. |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 04:14:03 PM |
|
Name: |
James C. |
Comments: |
@Yoni: I am not really sure what words you are talking about. Curses? I did use some, I guess. I don’t know if they were censored for you or not, but either way they are mild. If anyone wants to be offended, I am sure there are better sites for it than here. I am also not trying to make an example out of anyone. I respond to people who say something that’s to me, or that I have an opinion on. As for the rankings, well the first time I was involved in a DB discussion someone said “We work to post times on the AR and then someone tries to cheat and spoil it all.” From what I can see, this is exactly what it’s about whether people come right out and say it or not. I am also a poker player. I don’t know if you read that or it was coincidence, but trust me, if someone is so careless with their cards that they flash, it is in your interest to look. If you aren’t looking then you probably aren’t winning. It’s not the same as having x-ray vision, but then Minesweeper and Poker are nothing alike. Steroids is different, too. It is expressly against published rules. The rules of minesweeper only say that the object is to find all the mines as quickly as possible. The hints section says that you should try to remember patterns, so memory is part of the game. I am not going to defend the pattern/board analogy again. The repeating boards, may be a flaw or an oversight, but it is still part of the game. You also really have no way of knowing the intent of the creator unless you read or heard his published thoughts on the matter. If you don’t think that it’s worth your time to remember a board, then don’t, but that doesn’t mean someone else won’t. So why put yourself at a disadvantage? Doesn’t make sense to me. |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 03:47:44 PM |
|
Name: |
Yoni Roll |
Comments: |
Another thing I think we should examine more thoroughly is the randomness of the clone, I'm not 100% sure it's random enough to make sure people will never recognize boards, In my opinion it's randomness should be better than just of the default VB RNG (Random Number Generator). Also about the Clone, I think that if we would recognize it as the "official" minesweeper game, we might want to have a second look on it, to make sure there are no bugs in it and also make sure it is always up-to-date with any problems found. Putting it in the hands of one man only is problematic (by that i don't mean that he might cheat but that he might miss some bugs or not have time to work on it on busy times etc.) (without underestimating Rodrigo, this is vaild for anyone). However making it Open Source is too dangerous as it will make cheating extremely easy, therefore i suggest that we choose people we trust completely not to abuse the source, and with Rodrigo's approval, to get the source and be able to change it too. Well, I think this message was long enough to compensate for some time not posting. ![]() Yoni |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 03:46:29 PM |
|
Name: |
Yoni Roll |
Comments: |
A fair solution is hard to find though, but in my opinion the best option that came till now is erasing all known UPK records done until now, and accepting new int records from the clone only. (Matt's 10 is a hard case for that matter since he got it before people knew about cycles and bad randomness widely and as Martin said "it almost seems mandatory to keep it" :> but that individual case is not what makes the point anyway) I know this can hurt people that have problem using the clone but I think those people are not so many and we must sacrifise someone, i'm afraid. I will get hurt from that too as I don't have the clone on my university computers so I will probably concentrate on expert there and play int mostly at home (with the clone). I will make a poll on the addicts group about "Can you use the clone to play" (and not do you want but can, because if i am wrong and there are many people who really just can't play on the clone then maybe that solution isn't good after all). (Continued in next post again, last one ![]() |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 03:45:36 PM |
|
Name: |
Rodrigo |
Comments: |
Hi everybody! Well, this post of mine was not supposed to be made today, it was supposed to be made a little later... It was going to be a kind of "surprise", but but because of the intense discussion that is happening here on the Guestbook, I will antecipate it now. ![]() Since some weeks ago, and before all these discussions start, we were having the idea of creating an option for the clone to upload the history files to a site that could store, show and update the scores of everyone automatically. The first tests are already done, and everything seems to be working very well. I still don't have and don't want to set any estimated date to finish it, but, for a great coincidence, it will probably satisfy what some of you mentioned lately about creating a list for times achieved with the clone. One first step that we would like to give would be to include an encryption to the history file of the clone in the new version that I plan to release these days. Unlike the format changes that I've done in the video files in the past, I don't want everyone's current history files (without encryption) not to be readable in the new version with encryption. So, when I release this new version soon, I am planning to make the conversion manually instead of adding an extra converter program. I would receive via e-mail your history files and convert them back to you. I promise I would return your files as quick as possible, by checking my e-mails frequently, many times a day. ![]() This way, when we finish the online submission of the history files to a site, we could be certain that the files would be secure, without any modified score. I think that most of you who are agreeing that something should be done to help solving all this discussion would agree that this inconvenient thing (e-mailing a file and having to wait a little for it to return) would be made in benefit of the community. What do you think? |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 03:43:53 PM |
|
Name: |
Yoni Roll |
Best expert: |
64 |
Best intermediate: |
16 |
Comments: |
Congratulations Dave! You came to chat earlier and didn't even say that you broke your record ![]() Second congrats to hopsing (Robert) and Roman too (first was on chat :>) "@ Katy: You've started something you know......just like someone coined the phrase 3BV, you've started UPK. You're in the history books forever." Exactly what I thought of too, Dave! I think Elmar came with 3BV or maybe it was Benny Benjamin, not sure. So, about the UPK stuff etc.: I don't think doing nothing is practical if we don't want to see "official scores" like 5 or 6 on the ranking. Erasing all of the perior records or sub 1x records is way too drastic too imo as vast majority of them were made totally genuine. @James C Why using "those words" and not having a civilized conversation ? Even if you feel that you want to say that, i think you should restrain so no one gets hurt. I hope you won't make me "an example" of something.. because my general opinions doesn't support your's, but nothing is personal of course. "Somebody gets mad because somebody got a good board and beat them in the rankings" I really don't think this is about that, my record is not near 11 and I long stopped tring to evolve on the best players list (I'm tring to resume now though ![]() "How in the hell could a good memory be considered Unfair?" That's i think like saying how a good sight can make playing poker unfair, when you see the opponent cards using it. Or how a good skill of hiding steroids etc. from judges can make your records on a sports not vaild. Having a good ability to remember things that should not exist in the first place shouldn't be a part of the game, and I think it's pretty obvious that the creator of minesweeper didn't mean people to memorize boards etc. the fact that they repeat etc. are simply bugs in the game imo. (Continued..) |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 02:15:44 PM |
|
Name: |
Michael S. Repton |
Best intermediate: |
23 -> 22! |
Comments: |
That's right, guys.... the argumentative newbie just broke his record! http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball1418/minesweep22.gif |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 12:42:58 PM |
|
Name: |
Dave Matson |
Comments: |
@ Hopsing: Congratulations on the 23! I haven't seen it yet, but I will soon. I really have to keep my eye on you! ![]() Good luck everyone! |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 12:42:17 PM |
|
Name: |
James C |
Comments: |
Yeah, well, that's the way it goes sometimes. If you read all of my words, I am sure you noticed the part I wrote about arguing with 5 guys at once. A lot of people on here want to swith over to clonesweeper, but even among themselves, they can't agree on why or how to go about it. I think there are a lot of reasons to do nothing about this and I address each one of them as I see them come up, or in some cases when I just can't keep my mouth shut any longer. I am actually glad you stepped in on this discussion. Maybe you could serve as an example that people don't need board cycles or UPK or any other assorted crap in order to beat this game. That's what it all boils down to. Somebody gets mad because somebody got a good board and beat them in the rankings. I say that if we all play the same game, we will all get the same boards. I also see no reason what-so-ever that the game should be anything other than the original Minesweeper. Until this thing gets hashed out, I will use a lot of words. If the decision is made to switch to the clone? Well, I haven't decided yet. I will probably still post for the AR, but then again, I may not. I am sure there are people that will not be sorry to see me go, but the reality is that the more people in the AR, the better it is. |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 12:36:35 PM |
|
Name: |
Robert Benditz |
Best expert: |
83 |
Best intermediate: |
6x26 => 23.99 |
Best beginner: |
2 |
Comments: |
Hi all After 6x26 and a lot of crying in the IRC-channel (people were actually complaining about me) I finally managed to get a 23 on the clone, please don't take it away ![]() ![]() There is no way you can just run away with your 22 Dave, I am still right behind you ![]() Go get the vid on my page, it's freakishly fast ![]() Cu all Hopsing |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 12:31:32 PM |
|
Name: |
Dave Morgan |
Comments: |
Auto updating assumes that everyone has internet access on the computer that they are playing minesweeper on (and such things generally want you to be connected to the internet either straight away, or they won't let you do anything else until you send the date/tell the program not to send it, this is just lazy programming though, so as long as it's done properly that would makes things less of a problem) I agree that it would be nice if we could have auto-updates of the best ever list, I just think that in practise it has it's flaws |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 12:12:07 PM |
|
Name: |
Lasse Nyholm |
Comments: |
For someone who proposes to change nothing, you sure use a lot of words to express it, James C. I applaud Dennis' sacrifice and wish I could do the same, but as I have achieved a 12 on both dreamboard, non-dreamboard and the clone, it wouldn't be a sacrifice worth noticing - Dennis' is though. Lanyjé |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 11:45:20 AM |
|
Name: |
James C |
Comments: |
Well, I haven't posted in a little while. I really try, but people keep talking about stuff that I just can't ignore. I will let you guys straighten it out with the votes and stuff, but I read Katy's proposal. Not too bad, but one small question? How in the hell could a good memory be considered Unfair? Are good motor skills unfair? If I am not allowed to remember anything at all about about any prior game, can I still use my dominant hand for the next game? By the way, my favorite proposal of hers was the one that we do nothing, but I am sure you all guessed that. |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 11:27:25 AM |
|
Name: |
Dave Matson |
Comments: |
@ Gergely: You asked how we can filter through the old scores to determine which ones used UPK to achieve them. Unfortunately I don't think that there is a very effective answer to that! The most that we could do is to ask the people if their scores were achieved that way, and ask them their best non-UPK int score. It would involve a lot of trust, but we have to give the people the benefit of the doubt. I also don't think it's fair to completely start a whole new list and not include any scores from the old list. It would be a shame for the retirees who worked hard to get their legit scores to not be on a current list. @ Everyone: I think that would be a cool idea to have automatic updates to a best-ever list via the clone. Once you break a personal best, it would automatically update the list for you! That is assuming we all agree to use the clone from now on, of course. @ Katy: You've started something you know......just like someone coined the phrase 3BV, you've started UPK. You're in the history books forever. ![]() |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 11:19:12 AM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
For all I know there aren't any 3BV restrictions. |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 10:39:37 AM |
|
Name: |
Roman Gammel |
Best beginner: |
1??? |
Comments: |
I got 1s on clone, but 3BV was 1. I thought that clone generates boards with 3BV restriction (3BV>=2). this result was unexpected. http://gammel.pisem.net/1s.mvf |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 10:24:45 AM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
PS: I'm not saying we couldn't use Geogi's (cleaned up) rankings as a base. Personally I don't see why I should give up my 14. I only play Int for the AR these days and don't think I will get close to it anytime soon. Same goes for example for Stephan's 12 or any old timer's record that we think is legit. ![]() |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 10:09:44 AM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Best expert: |
57x4 |
Best intermediate: |
14x2 |
Best beginner: |
1x2 |
Comments: |
IMO the clone will be the future. I think it should be quite easy to have an automaticly updated best-ever-ranking with the help of the clone(s). Once that lists exists, I don't think Damien, Georgi nor anyone else will want to do the immense work to maintain a manual list. ![]() clone: best exp:.........57x3 best int:..........15 best beg:.........haven't tried I'm ready! ![]() |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 10:01:03 AM |
|
Name: |
your mom |
Best expert: |
still have not beat it |
Best intermediate: |
69 |
Best beginner: |
16 |
Comments: |
chad your a bit#h still can't beat my 69. You suck Jackass! |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 09:40:35 AM |
|
Name: |
Gergely |
Comments: |
Anyway, I modified the poll as you wished, so please, vote again, because all 3 posts were lost. Keep on spinning! |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 09:33:13 AM |
|
Name: |
Gergely |
Comments: |
Ok, I'll add a new choice - but let me ask You privately: how do you think filtering non-cycle-based dreamboard records??? Whoa! Wait a minute, you're right: how do we trust ANY records??? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 09:00:07 AM |
|
Name: |
Christoph Marx |
Comments: |
@Dave Matson: that's exactly what I just wanted to claim. replace the all UPK scores and ensure that no new such will appear! @gergely: please modify your poll that way |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 08:59:00 AM |
|
Name: |
Below Insanity |
Comments: |
Thanks ma. Words of encouragement. Life can't get any better. ![]() |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 08:57:27 AM |
|
Name: |
your mom |
Comments: |
Below insanity your a homo |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 08:55:55 AM |
|
Name: |
your mom |
Comments: |
sorry I'm |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 08:55:09 AM |
|
Name: |
Your Mom |
Best expert: |
Have not beat it yet |
Best intermediate: |
75 |
Best beginner: |
16 |
Comments: |
I the Fu#king man |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 08:51:56 AM |
|
Name: |
Below Insanity |
Comments: |
I've got a 57 in Solitaire. Beat that. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 08:49:28 AM |
|
Name: |
Dave Morgan |
Comments: |
No, it's not random, but you're just trolling so that's all I have to say on the matter I think that whether or not people can reacheive their records or not doesn't have much to do with what their records are - you can easily have a relatively big jump, then not get close to it for a while, and then eventually start to get lots of times close to it/the same as it Granted that in terms of time it's relatively easy for me to get within 1 or 2 seconds of my int record, where as someone with a higher record might have, say a best time of 30 seconds but then their next best as 35, so getting within 1 or 2 seconds from them would be difficult, but then again that just goes back to the thing about the faster you are the harder it is to improve your time by the same amount, so I do see what you are saying, but I don't think it really works in practise |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 08:46:13 AM |
|
Name: |
Dave Matson |
Comments: |
I think that the poll is a good idea for now, even just to see the opinions of all. There is one thing about the choices that I would like to say... In some of the choices you discuss the "dreamboard OR other unfair prior knowledge boards". I think that some DB scores are legitimate, and were obtained without using unfair prior knowledge. In my opinion, this would allow us to keep some DB scores, but not all. Could the poll be ammended somehow to reflect this? I think that we should ask all players to admit to any UPK boards and have those records REPLACED (not erased) with their best non-UPK score, and from now on only use the clone. This may not be the most popular opinion, or the most feasible, but the one that I support. Wow, I didn't realize that a simple 15 --> 11 from Stephen Arnason could start such a conversation! (I believe that was what started it, anyway!) Anyway, good luck in sweeping all! ![]() |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 08:32:55 AM |
|
Name: |
Below Insanity |
Best expert: |
n/a |
Best intermediate: |
107 |
Best beginner: |
7 |
Comments: |
Stop the cloning. Play the real game. Stop crying. It's pretty much all random no matter how much you analyze the **** game. If you can memorize a series of thousands of boards and notice a pattern, good for you. For the rest of the world, it's pretty much random. STFU. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 08:26:35 AM |
|
Name: |
Dead Icon |
Best expert: |
1 |
Best intermediate: |
1 |
Best beginner: |
1 |
Comments: |
Stfu homos. |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 07:59:38 AM |
|
Name: |
Gergely |
Comments: |
Well, I've thought that nobody convinces anyone anymore, so to cut this endless debate, I created a poll (maybe I was wrong ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 07:54:46 AM |
|
Name: |
James C. |
Best expert: |
78 |
Best intermediate: |
21 |
Comments: |
Once again, everyone, I understand perfectly well about percentages and which records are harder to break for which players and which reasons. I never said anything about breaking a record, I said something about tying a personal record. It may not be easy for Dennis to get to 11 on the clone, but I am not exactly in favor of him or anyone else playing the clone exclusively now am I? Here is what I am trying to say. My personal records were both set on a day where everything just went right. I have posted the circumstances of them both on here many times. The 21 was a 5 second jump from 26 and the 78 was a jump from 92. Since then I have 2 25's and a 95 as my best other scores. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I bet I am not the only one that fits these circumstances, especially when you consider my ability level. I know **** well that going from 14->13 is very difficult. But if your record is a 14 you probably have several 15s and a whole grip of 16s in your back pocket. So, if everyone erased all their scores, the better players would RE-achieve their own records faster. That's why they are better players. A better player may have a smaller margin for error, but they also have a smaller margin OF error. I think I may stop posting here. My views may be twisted, but I refuse to believe that I am the only one who gets them. |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 07:41:05 AM |
|
Name: |
James C. |
Comments: |
I told you I was going to wish that I had left this alone. I am sorry if I have brought any negative light or insults to this, and I said so already, but I didn't randomly drag anyone into this argument. There are other names that I could drop now, but I won't. There were names I could have dropped before, but I didn't. If Dennis wants to be the guy that makes the stand, then he must accept that some things are going to be dircted at him. I think he got some of my points anyway, since he mentioned them. So, Dennis, why are you giving up the 11? Do you feel you achieved it unfairly? (I don't) If you did achieve it unfairly, you wouldn't have made the rank you hold, in which case you aren't really giving up anything. If it was a fair score, then keep it, and give up nothing. I certainly think you should keep the first 13 anyway. Maybe you feel that giving up 8 rank spots is a big sacrifice, but I still don't think it is. 53rd out of how many players? Not really much different than 45th, except for maybe an exclusive top 50 thing. The main point was that others may not give it up, as you also seem to beleive. If you are wrong, as you hope, then others will give up DB times and such, and then you will get a spot or two back, in which case you still have given up nothing (or closer to nothing) By the way, what are you trying to imply about my times. I have made it public knowledge that my own record is on the DB. I also set that record before I ever posted here and even knew about the board. I really don't get why you mentioned it. Anyway, If you want to give up your time, then go right ahead. I personnaly think you are doing it for nothing. |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 07:35:35 AM |
|
Name: |
Dave Morgan |
Comments: |
I think James' point was not about whether or not it's easier to get from 14 to 13 than 25 to 24 (for example), but the fact that some people are closer to the best they've ever been at the moment, and that some people play more than others Dan has said a couple of times that he doesn't record videos anymore and that he thinks that if he got a new WR people would accept it because he's know and trusted within the community, and his current record is reasonlbly close to the current WR. I'm also fairly sure that Georgi's list has plenty of people in it who haven't sent in screenshots or videos (certainly for those with lower rankings) - I know that I've had a record on there before that I didn't have a video of... |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 07:21:02 AM |
|
Name: |
Gergely |
Comments: |
Congrats, Roman! ![]() @Katy: Nice summary! Honest playing can be the only debate-free solution. The only problems are the fun-seeker score submitters, who just wanna see their names in some high position - there was, there are and there will be people like them. How to evade them? In addition, I'm kinda new guy here and I respect those people who achieved some good score and retired from playing and don't follow the happenings here. They can be proud of what they achieved and I'd have a bad feeling if I were them when visiting to the bestever they notice that their results were erased. ![]() ![]() I'm still for a new, clone-based list with the parallel original one (as I mentioned before). But whatever the community decide, I will accept - This game's just for fun, isn't it? ![]() |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 06:35:10 AM |
|
Name: |
Stephen |
Comments: |
The fact that it is harder to get an 11 from a 14 than even a 15 from a 25 can be proven by the number of players who have gotten either score, and I think that there are probably only a handful (if that) of people who can achieve an 11 on what may be referred to as the most 'fair' possible way of getting a score, not recognizing a board, playing for the first time a board, and in a completely random order, whereas there are many more people who have gotten 15's on boards recognized, etc. It's kind of like saying (in school marks, for instance) that it's easier for a person with a 96% average to obtain a 98% average than for a person with a 79% average to obtain an 86%. Trust me, James, it's not, as there is less room for error, a 98% is almost perfect, as well as an 11 second achieved on int. Congrats, Roman!! |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 05:47:18 AM |
|
Name: |
Roman Gammel |
Best expert: |
53 --> 52 |
Best intermediate: |
13 |
Best beginner: |
2 |
Comments: |
3BV 129 (3BV/s 2,50) I have video, if anybody want to see i can e-mail it. Screenshot: http://www.gammel.narod.ru/52s.png. |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 05:13:05 AM |
|
Name: |
Jon S |
Comments: |
...Continues When there is a final version of the clone, we should be able to address some of the issues (platform compatibility, randomness issues etc.). Then we should decide if we want new rules for world records, and there should be a discussion about what to do with the old records. In the meantime, a little debate won't harm. If I hadn't been writing for this long, I should have said a "little" about the Active Ranking too. I might do that another day, though. This post became longer than I imagined. Maybe I should have followed Katy's example? |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 05:04:35 AM |
|
Name: |
Jon S |
Comments: |
...Continues I'm not sure if Georgi accepted some times from previous lists without proof, but my point is that the rules have been changed. If someone got a really nice time without getting it on video, they would probably not be accepted in the lists. This is an "evolution" in the rules that might exclude a lot of people that are not aware of the rules (I don't think they have been written down by the way). This means that we are already excluding times from people that don't or can't (of some reason) capture their games. I have not heard anybody protest against this, so I guess people agree. Why not let beginners continue to submit scores to Damien's site or to anybody that satisfies their needs (and maybe get motivated by seeing what others have achieved before them)? I think the best sweepers should have their own ranking. For the moment this is Georgi's rankings, but if the community want something different it might be about time to make new rankings. Anyone can make a ranking, of course, but I think some rankings will always be preferred by the best sweepers. One question we might ask ourselves is if we want a new ranking that only accept scores achieved on the clone(s). I can't see that it differs much from the step to demand video proof. The exception is if there is some bug in the clone that limits some functionality to certain operating systems, or something like that. I don't see any difference between downloading the clone and downloading software to capture videos. One problem we might face is that the community is split into different parts that compete with the rules they prefer. I have the impression that the clone is popular enough to attract most of todays best sweepers if it should become the standard for world records. I don't know if Rodrigo is planning to do further improvements anytime. I'd say that we should wait a little while before we eventually make a new ranking. ... To be continued |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 04:28:39 AM |
|
Name: |
Katy LaVallee |
Best expert: |
59 |
Best intermediate: |
14 |
Best beginner: |
1 |
Comments: |
i wrote a long post about this whole thing, and i didn't want to break it up into little posts (formatting is important to me) so i put it on my web space. you can go there to read it if you like. i made it perty, and i have lots of vids up now too. yeah... the only reason i'm up at 6:26 a.m. is because i worked on it all night. why am i not doing this for a living!? (web design... not writing about minesweeper) |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 04:26:51 AM |
|
Name: |
Jon S |
Comments: |
I think it would be interesting to hear people's thoughts about the various rankings around. I'm going to state some of mine, anyway. The first thing that I'm concerned with is the "ownership" of the rankings. We have some different "World Record" rankings. I consider Damien Moore to be the owner of the lists on this site. As the owner, he is free to accept or deny scores as he wishes. He may also choose when he wants to update the lists himself. Damien's ranking probably has an interesting history, though. If I'm not mistaken, this was considered to be the "de facto" world record site one or two years ago. I think scores mainly were accepted without proof, or perhaps a screenshot was needed. Those who submitted really good scores, would probably need some proof, though. When these rankings stopped being regularly updated, people began requesting some new rankings. If I'm not mistaken, Georgi's rankings are the "de facto" rankings for world records for the moment. Beginners might continue to submit their scores to Damien as long as he keeps the lists up and running, but I don't think the best players cares about doing that anymore. As the "owner" of the new ranking, Georgi seems to decide the rules for what scores he accepts on his lists himself. He probably tries to do this based on the public opinion, though. I think he demands video proof to accept scores. Except from that, he has some rules about whether or not to accept videos that seems to be faked or suspicious in some way. What I find interesting here is the demand for video proof. This means that all those who has played games without capturing them wouldn't be accepted on the new lists. I think that most people in the community today agrees that proof is needed. This means that a lot of the records achieved before 2003 (or whenever video capturing became usual) will not be accepted. To be continued... |
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 04:02:48 AM |
|
Name: |
Dave Matson |
Comments: |
@ all: Good morning! @ James: Is your goal to become the most abrasive person in the guestbook? Listen, you and I have been very civil, why do you have to go and say things like that??? Why would I give up my 22 second time on int that I just got? It was using the clone, on a non-recognized board, without using board cycling! You're trying to use analogies that aren't parallel with your point! IF I had used board cycling to my advantage to get my 22, then yes it would make sense for me to not count my 22, especially after I said that Dennis made a noble move by not counting his 11. However, since my time is a fair time why would it be necessary for me to give it up? By the way, I also think it is easier for people with higher times to break their records than it is for people with really low scores. Me breaking my 25 only took me about two months, but it may take someone a whole year to break a record of 14! James, either you have to stop bringing people into your reasoning, or you need to be less emphatic in your points. When you start to insult people, or use their name in a negative way, it really turns them off from considering your point, and puts them in defensive mode so they are more concerned with attacking back at you than trying to solve the problem. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 02:27:24 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best expert: |
61 |
Best intermediate: |
14 |
Best beginner: |
1 |
Comments: |
James, I don't know how you reach your conclusions but there's just no way you're right about what you said about it being easier for me to shave off three seconds on int than for relative newbies to do it! I hate to be the one breaking the news to you but the better you get the harder it gets to shave off any seconds of your records at all. Just ask Lasse!!! I think I can still improve some on expert and I might also be able to get a 13 or even a 12 someday but it's not going to be in any near future! I only got that 11 because I had had the board several times before and because I've got a great memory for familiar, great boards! There's just no way I could get an 11 on the clone, I think. Right now it might seem impossible for you to reach 18 too but it isn't! If you keep playing it'll happen I'm sure! Besides, you got that 21 on the dreamboard so your non-DB record is 25... I certainly don't think it would be as hard for you to get to 22 (or even 18 ) as it would be for me to get back to 11! And as for what I am really giving up... I am giving up several ranks in the best-ever list! Right now I'm ranked as the 45th best player ever but after giving up my 11 that'll change to a position as the 53rd player as far as I could tell from the list as it looks now. Again, I know it doesn't take a lot to jump 8 rankings when you're a relative novice because you can do so by shaving off one second but I won't be able to do it that easily. Even if I get a 58 and get back to where I was I would still have been further ahead had I not given up my 11. But yes, off course I'm doing this to 'get what I want'! But the way I see it there's just no way I could fight for this if people knew me as one of the 'old-timers' who got to keep his 11 thereby jeopardising NOTHING! It IS a big sacrifise to me and I'm sure most of the players in the top-50 wouldn't have done the same thing in a million years EVEN to get what they wanted!!! I hope I'm wrong of course! |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 25th 2004 at 12:34:26 AM |
|
Name: |
Christoph Marx |
Best expert: |
61 |
Best intermediate: |
17 |
Best beginner: |
2 |
Comments: |
I wanted to stay out of the repeated DB and randomness discussion but I can't hear it any longer! I don't think that the problem with the DB is that the board is so easy but that you can easily remind it. If there were no board cycles and many boards that are very similar to the DB there wouldn't be a problem with the DB because you could never be sure if you're really on the DB. So there could be no use of memorizing it. I think that at least all times that were achieved by memorizing should be deleted. I also like the idea of accepting sub-15 only from the clone (but I'd suggest sub-14). BTW: The best time I've ever played on a board int board I knew perfectly was a 9. I will never ever claim that time to be ranked. Now to randomness and limits: The clone is pretty safe because of the weakness of the used stadard-VB-randomizer. The randomizer is unable to produce very strange boards. But one can still memorize boards and wait for the chance. The only way of getting rid of such kind of cheating-possibilaties is to seriously enlarge the number of different boards sothat there are similar boards and you cannot know if the board is really the board you have memorized. But enlargeing the number of boards means creating the danger of very easy boards so we would need restrictionis of how easy a board may be. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 24th 2004 at 11:43:41 PM |
|
Name: |
Michael |
Comments: |
"5 years from now, we may be arguing about the ultra-dreamboard only available in the clone because the curent WR is 7 and some guy made a 2." You seem to be missing the point, or else deliberately ignoring it. The point isn't which version has better boards available; it's whether there are "board cycles" that allow you to take unfair advantage of the game. If the clone has an ultra-dreamboard but you can only access it by playing fairly, there's no problem. |
![]() |
|
May 24th 2004 at 11:06:00 PM |
|
Name: |
Stephen |
Comments: |
So MS version really does have a board cycle, the boards preceding the dreamboard in all of my videos are the same, i just noticed that now. There is a 59 3bv followed by a 62, 74, 79 3bv board then the dreamboard. i'm guessing that if it's like that for the dreamboard it's like that for every board ever played on MS version. ya learn something new everyday, |
![]() |
|
May 24th 2004 at 08:02:57 PM |
|
Name: |
James C. |
Comments: |
I understand the percentage thing. It applies to almost all competition. Maybe I should have worded it different. Your best time is 14 right? Mine is 21. It would be easier for me to get to 20 than for you to get to 13. But, if we erase both our scores, it will be easier for you to get back to 14 than for me to get back to 21, especially considering my second best time is 25 (x2) and has been for a few months. Also, you don't really know how much time I or Dennis spends each day. He has [most likely] been playing longer, and he is obviously better than I am, but that is no reason to assume he plays more each day. I bet I play as much as or more than nearly anyone on this site who also has a full time job. Just becuse times are getting faster, doesn't mean that there is need for improvement. The 100 meter dash times have also gotten faster over the years, but no one is lobbying to add 10 more meters, now are they? I actually am considering giving up on this. I hate to be like this, but I think I have the right to argue against the clone as much as you guys are trying to argue for it. I know that I am not the only one who dislikes it. I happen to think that my arguments are valid, but I guess I only share that opinion with myself and this cigarette in my hand. |
![]() |
|
May 24th 2004 at 07:48:30 PM |
|
Name: |
Martin Toft Madsen |
Comments: |
Two things: 1) I'm almost certain it is NOT easier for Dennis to cut off three seconds than for any off you "slower" guys. Maybe he'll do it in a shorter period of time, but that's only because he plays more each day. If you take it percent-wise it's actually more difficult for Dennis ![]() 2) Let's say that there is board cycling in the clone too (which I personally think there is, but I think it is not as thoroughly as in the original), then no one says we can't make the clone better during the next five years. Rules have to be maintained over time. What was considered the perfect minesweeper 5 years ago isn't necessarily considered the perfect minesweeper today - the same thing applies to the future. |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 24th 2004 at 07:00:49 PM |
|
Name: |
James C. |
Comments: |
From what I understand the guy that made the 5 built a copy of the dreamboard in the clone for the purpose of seeing how fast it could be done. It's not quite the same as making a real 5, or did you not follow the whole dreamboard discussion?. I can't speak for everyone, but I play MINESWEEPER. The clone may be an improvement in some eye's, but it is still just a copy of the original game we all got hooked on. 5 years from now, we may be arguing about the ultra-dreamboard only available in the clone because the curent WR is 7 and some guy made a 2. |
![]() |
|
May 24th 2004 at 06:52:47 PM |
|
Name: |
Daniel |
Comments: |
"Their [sic] is NOTHING unfair about MS minesweeper, and I don't believe that there was ANYTHING about it that needed improving." So people can get a 5 on int and there is NOTHING wrong with MS and you don't believe ANYTHING has to change. We clearly don't play the same game. You play yours, we'll play ours. |
![]() |
|
May 24th 2004 at 06:34:01 PM |
|
Name: |
James C. |
Comments: |
Like I said, I just can't help myself. One more thing, sorry to do this Dennis, but giving up your 3 seconds is about as noble as the time Michael Jordan played for only a few million a year. You are one of the better players here, so what are you really giving up? It's not going to take you long to make up those seconds. As for rankings, active or otherwise, you have a better chance at shaving your expert time anyway, as do we all. Even if you do consider it that great a sacrifice, you are only doing it in hopes of getting what you want out of it. So how about it Dave? You want to give up that 22 you just made as a gesture of good faith as well? I know you made it on the clone, and congratulations, but still it's only 3 seconds, right? Think about how hard you had to work for that and if you would still give up your good time when someone else may not. Dennis may have worked harder to cut three seconds, but it will require less effort for him to re-do it than it would for you or me. So, if Dennis can convince everyone to give up their times, then who wins? Well the best players win, of course. They will re-accomplish their times while us bottom feeders are stuck in the same rut dreaming about the one lucky day when we could get a measly 19. Again, sorry guys, it's not really personal. That's just the way I see it. Their is nothing unfair about MS minesweeper, and I don't believe that there was anything about it that needed improving. |
![]() |
|
May 24th 2004 at 05:51:13 PM |
|
Name: |
Daniel |
Best intermediate: |
17 -> 18 |
Comments: |
Personally, I would like to say that I am in favour of Gergely's proposal for a new clone list. I would be happy to foresake my MS 17, though played on a unrecognized board for my 18 achieved on the clone. Active players are always improving- we'll have our MS times beaten quickly, I'd hope. Might I just add that I never called for 3bv limits. The chances of getting an expert board of 3bv 1 are so ridiculously small that I reckon I have more chance of walkng through a concrete wall under quatum laws. |
![]() |
|
May 24th 2004 at 05:34:06 PM |
|
Name: |
James C. |
Comments: |
Before anyone mentions it, I am fully aware that there need to be some limitations to the randomness of the boards, but limiting that in turn limits the number of combinations. The more you limit them, the greater the possibilities of repeats, and so on and so forth. Can anyone prove that the clone is the happy medium? Maybe 5 years from now there will be a clone board discovered that everyone and their brother can score a 6 on, then what? |
![]() |
|
May 24th 2004 at 05:31:40 PM |
|
Name: |
Dave Matson |
Best intermediate: |
25 x 4 ===> 22 |
Comments: |
Holy crap, I don't believe it. I broke the curse of my 4 25's!!!!!. Gotta love that high score box coming up! It was on the clone of course, and I've got the vid if anyone is interested. Just check my website. |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
May 24th 2004 at 05:31:02 PM |
|
Name: |
James C. |
Comments: |
I have a bad feeling that I should stay out of this, but I just can't help myself. I still think the idea of getting rid of the original version of the game because of one or two familiar boards is utterly ridiculous. People are saying that it goes against the nature of the game not to have a truly random board. Yet, just a few months ago people wanted to limit the 3bv for any board that sets a record. If the Random number generator for minesweeper were true, there would be virtually no repeats ever. There would also be several random occurrences of an Expert board with a 3bv of 1. So which do you want? For the most part, every one of us fell in love with Minesweeper when there was nothing more than Win3.1. I personnaly have played for years, I just never knew realized how much more there was to the game until last December. My times have improved by 70! seconds since then. All of it was done on the original versions of the game that initially caught my attention. The counter board and the stats are the only reasons I play the clone at all. Video is nice, but, if I were that hardcore, I would use Camtasia, or even a webcam (though that would probably be a ****y recorder.) I have stated several times on here that I don't like the clone, so this should be no surprise. But, also consider that this forum is what made me aware of the clone in the first place. I doubt I would have progressed the same if there was only the clone. Another thing someone mentioned is that the intermediate is too easy on the original. Well, it's supposed to be easier. It has the same mine density as beginner, or at least the first versions did. Can anyone even come up with a ratio of what beg/int/exp should be? Maybe we should be aspiring to achieve a time that's only 4 times what our best beginner game is. I say we show a little respect and loyalty to the game we all love, or that we are addicted to, whatever the case. If we are going to ban anything, let's ban the |
![]() |
|
May 24th 2004 at 04:29:05 PM |
|
Name: |
Dave Matson |
Comments: |
Wow, quite noble of you Dennis! I'm impressed at the initiative you've shown to help the game! |
![]() |
|
May 24th 2004 at 03:40:39 PM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best expert: |
61 |
Best intermediate: |
14 |
Best beginner: |
1 |
Comments: |
NO, that was NOT a mistake! ![]() As I've also told Lance in our e-mail 'conversations' about the future of intermediate, I think it would be a really good idea to make a cut-off at 15, so that all times claimed of 14 or less should be obtained on the clone. This means that the new as old people in this community will still be on ONE list and the only difference would be that from now on we only accept sub-15s made on the clone. I personally would like to get rid of all DB scores on the best-ever list but that's not my decision to make but one of the community! Perhaps a poll should be made on this issue! But talk is one thing, action is another! I would thus like to take the first step towards dis-polluting the minesweeper community and as a consequence I would like to ask Georgi and everyone else to disregard my 11 and my two 13s obtained on the clone! Yes, I would like to have my int record registered as 14 because that is the best score I've obtained on the clone so far (twice actually)! I sincerely hope that others will take the same step and help everyone make minesweeper the game I am sure it was intended to be. ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Viewing Page 12 of 23 (Total Entries: 2239) |