The Authoritative Minesweeper Guestbook

Feel free to chat, make suggestions, or tell your scores!

  First Page
  Prev Page
  Post
  Home
Next Page  
Last Page  
Viewing Page 40 of 53 (Total Entries: 5262)
Nov 12th 2005 at 07:08:22 PM
Name:  

Daniel Brim

Comments:  

@Lois.

Albeit dated, this site has a list:

http://metanoodle.com/minesweeper/RankedWomen.html

   
Nov 12th 2005 at 06:59:02 PM
Name:  

Lois

Comments:  

Seems like mostly guys who are into minesweeper. Any females at the top?

Email Email    
Nov 12th 2005 at 06:32:59 PM
Name:  

Lois

Best beginner:  

6

Comments:  

So inspired by this site- got to 6 on beginner last night before going to bed!

Wahoooooo!

   
Nov 12th 2005 at 05:54:23 PM
Name:  

adnan

Best expert:  

130

Best intermediate:  

40

Best beginner:  

6

Comments:  

i was struggling to get my expert below 180, then i came to this site and looked at the tips, and within a week, i lowered all of my scores, before my intermediate was 63 and my beginner was 13. i still dont understand how anyone gets below 50 on expert, thats just nuts

Email Email    
Nov 12th 2005 at 03:46:38 PM
Name:  

Grégoire Duffez

Best intermediate:  

12 -> 12x2

Comments:  

yeahh!!! my second 12 is a better one: 12.95 sec on a 39 3bv board, my 2nd time and 1st RQP
video linked on the url below

Email Email     Website Website    
Nov 12th 2005 at 07:46:17 AM
Name:  

Gergely

Comments:  

Hello!
As some players were interested, I decided to insert a nonosweeper part into the program of the tourny in February. I hope this will bring more competitors to Budapest
Preapre your mouses to crash!

Email Email    
Nov 12th 2005 at 03:52:42 AM
Name:  

AreOut

Comments:  

Dmitriy I think I need to translate you my post...

Email Email    
Nov 12th 2005 at 03:06:59 AM
Name:  

Rasmus H. Jensen

Comments:  

Thx Chill and congratulations

Post your video here in this topic on the forum (link below)...

    Website Website    
Nov 12th 2005 at 02:39:33 AM
Name:  

chill

Best expert:  

66 -> 62.78

Comments:  

Made this record a few days ago, but the site was down so I couldn't post it. It was a 151 3bv board. Btw, I'd like to update it for the bestever list but there seems to be a problem, my mails are never sent. Is there an alternative address to mail to or something like that? Anyways, I would be ranked 102nd, which I find a very sarcastic place
In the last week I've also beaten all my 3bv/s scores. Now I've got 5.01 on beginner, 3.44 on intermediate and 2.87 on expert. This sums up to 11.32.
But most of all, I'd like to congratulate Dennis for (again) breaking your record, and my felicitations also go to Rasmus. I felt you breathing down my neck for a while, luckily I beat my expert score because otherwise you would've almost beaten me Still, good luck sweeping to all of you!

   
Nov 12th 2005 at 02:26:18 AM
Name:  

Dmitriy

Comments:  

Stevan.. that is quite funny.. Do you know what is written in this russian sentence? OK, i will translate now: "****, somebody is spamming using my name.. Probably that is Stev or somebody else".

   
Nov 12th 2005 at 01:22:41 AM
Name:  

Daniel Brim

Comments:  

@Thomas... well... it's just the way I am. I can't do homework with music on, either!

   
Nov 12th 2005 at 01:12:02 AM
Name:  

Thomas Kolar

Comments:  

sorry for posting twice. I read a older post and don't understand how you can find music distracting. I play better when I hear music! Well, I guess that on a higher level than mine its probably necessary to concentrate...

Email Email    
Nov 12th 2005 at 01:04:55 AM
Name:  

Thomas Kolar

Best expert:  

89

Best intermediate:  

30

Best beginner:  

5

Comments:  

Wow... And I thought my times were good... I had no idea it was possible to play minesweeper professionally.

Email Email    
Nov 11th 2005 at 11:42:00 PM
Name:  

Daniel Brim

Best expert:  

93

Best intermediate:  

24x4

Best beginner:  

2x2

Comments:  

metanoodle.com is back up

And Lois, look back to September 15 (my first post in the guestbook). My scores were 6-50-180 then. Practice is key

   
Nov 11th 2005 at 08:57:28 PM
Name:  

Lois

Best expert:  

132

Best intermediate:  

39

Best beginner:  

8

Comments:  

Fun to find a site with all you other addicts! Nice to know I'm not alone! Some of your scores are incredible! I bow down to you!!!! My goal is to be listed.....some day....

Email Email    
Nov 11th 2005 at 05:29:11 PM
Name:  

hx 42

Best expert:  

999

Best intermediate:  

201

Best beginner:  

27

Comments:  

this games crazy i cant stop

   
Nov 11th 2005 at 03:56:24 PM
Name:  

AreOut

Comments:  

Hehe daddys son

Rogen блин. кто-то действительно спамит от моего имени. наверно Стив или еще кто нибудь.

Hope you were not referring to me

Email Email    
Nov 11th 2005 at 12:49:15 PM
Name:  

damien

Comments:  

i phoned the company that hosts my site and they said everything was correct, and suggested the method of payment (to a different company) had stopped. so, i've phoned my dad (who owns metanoodle.com) and he is trying to discover what is wrong....it is a bit tricky to communicate because i am in scotland , he is in canada, and the company is america....

   
Nov 11th 2005 at 09:25:37 AM
Name:  

Elmar

Best expert:  

3,50 3bv/s -> 3,61 3bv/s

Comments:  

53,81sec 3BV=191 3BV/s=3,61 mode=exp "flagging" rank: 26th time, 1st 3bv/s!

http://www.planete-demineur.com/phpBB2/download.php?id=590

With this new 3bv/s record I also pass the barrier of 14 with a total of 14,05.

   
Nov 11th 2005 at 04:28:10 AM
Name:  

Ralph

Comments:  

@ Dennis - congrats! trully world class!

@ Rasmus - well done - i had a feeling it was only a matter of time before you went sub-20 - i'm just glad i got my 18 before you did! i'm trying to get that sub-70, and sub-90 total - i've been hitting a lot of low 70s so i think there must be one on the way somewhere!

   
Nov 11th 2005 at 12:11:11 AM
Name:  

antonella

Comments:  

good guestbook :). hello .from europe!. this .is free guestbook ?..

   
Nov 10th 2005 at 01:30:13 PM
Name:  

Arjádre

Best intermediate:  

18,52

Comments:  

@Rasmus: a heartfelt congratulations ...welcome back to the top200!

   
Nov 10th 2005 at 12:58:06 PM
Name:  

Rasmus H. Jensen

Best intermediate:  

21 x 8 ------> 21 (21,10) x 10 ------> 18,86

Comments:  

10 21's before I got my first sub 20 - super syndrome! I nearly bashed in my screen when I got the 10th and nearly fell off my chair when I got the record screen pop-up later in the day. Overjoyed is the best way to describe my mood, feels like a huge milestone has been passed It was on a 37 with one guess. Video linked below...

@Ralph... Hope this will give me some breathing room in our little personal feud. Get a move on will you...

@Arjadre... No hard feelings I hope.

Congratulations Dennis! 17th in the world is really something I'm positive you have what it takes to make it to top 10.

    Website Website    
Nov 10th 2005 at 05:07:01 AM
Name:  

Dennis Lütken

Best expert:  

54.36 --> 51.26 NF

Best intermediate:  

12x2

Best beginner:  

1

Comments:  

Yes, I did break my record as most of you have probably noticed by now anyway. I just came here to announce it as well. I googled the guestbook as well, since I haven't been able to enter Damien's site. Well, I got my new record on a 121 3bv board and the first/middle part was not very good because I was focusing more on my conversation with Detrusor. Then I realised it was a possible record board and decided to focus all my attention on that game. Well, I'm glad I did and I'm glad I just got to finish the board. It could have possibly been a sub-50 but I still broke my record by 3 seconds and when you do that it's so hard to feel sad or angry! I'm now #17 in the bestever. I never thought that would happen and then it happened right after I had been trying to convince Detrusor that he would certainly break his 54 before me, seeing how he had so many more sub-60s than me. This was only my 10th sub-60, by the way!

On a side note and can now finally say that I beat Stephan Bechtel's 'record' of highest 3bv for an NF sub-20 which was 72. I had already tied it and also gotten 20.00 on a 74 3bv board but now I got 19.56 on a 76 3bv board (I think it was) and the 3bv/s was 4.09!

Email Email    
Nov 9th 2005 at 08:32:01 PM
Name:  

Daniel Brim

Comments:  

Small bug in the clone: On the clicks window... 11th is shown as 11st

   
Nov 9th 2005 at 06:19:54 PM
Name:  

Arjádre

Comments:  

sorry... happened, not happenned

   
Nov 9th 2005 at 06:18:54 PM
Name:  

Arjádre

Comments:  

@Damien: have you been able to figure out what happenned to the site?

   
Nov 9th 2005 at 03:14:09 AM
Name:  

Christoph

Comments:  

@Ralph: Was it you who's from Liverpool? I thought about going there anywhen in December. Would be nice to meet you.

I'll be in Edinburgh from 25th-27th November. Is here someone around from there or around?

Email Email    
Nov 9th 2005 at 03:08:21 AM
Name:  

Dmitriy

Comments:  

WTF?? The message below is spam
(Rogen, you could verify this post)

блин. кто-то действительно спамит от моего имени. наверно Стив или еще кто нибудь.

   
Nov 9th 2005 at 02:58:15 AM
Name:  

Rilian

Comments:  

ggg hehehe

    Website Website    
Nov 8th 2005 at 11:29:42 PM
Name:  

Dmitriy

Comments:  

hah, nice, Daniel

   
Nov 8th 2005 at 11:09:39 PM
Name:  

Daniel Brim

Best intermediate:  

24x3-->24x4

Comments:  

Literally the first game after the last post

   
Nov 8th 2005 at 11:02:07 PM
Name:  

Dane Skabelund

Best intermediate:  

31 ---> 30.58

Comments:  


   
Nov 8th 2005 at 10:55:35 PM
Name:  

Daniel Brim

Best intermediate:  

24x2-->24x3

Comments:  

My first syndrome?

Anyways, I was playing with distractions today (headphones). Seems that it makes no difference; I got a 95 on expert today.

   
Nov 8th 2005 at 02:57:47 PM
Name:  

Arjádre

Comments:  

@Dennis: wow... congrats!
@Damien: don't worry; it's been down less than a day... maybe the reason you haven't heard from them is that metanoodle.com is down, too! (I checked!) Ten acre country gem... You had better get the site back up quickly or Google will remove it from the top spot for the search "minesweeper"!!! anyways, it's nice to see you're back

   
Nov 8th 2005 at 02:10:09 PM
Name:  

damien

Comments:  

i just got internet again today and discovered my site does not exist. there is no note from the company that hosts it, so it is getting very frustrating.
glad to see al the discussion here i'll write more later....a major update is now due

   
Nov 8th 2005 at 01:24:02 PM
Name:  

Martin Toft Madsen

Comments:  

If the main site is down it would explain why so little has posted and also why Dennis hasn't posted his new exp record yet... I was wondering if he was starting to get lazy and not bothering to post here anymore. I go here directly (not via the main site ), that's why I haven't noticed any difference.
Anyway, once you get to read this Dennis: Congrats on your new record
And of course, congrats to all other record breakers too... Seems like I have to pull myself together and get a new record too

   
Nov 8th 2005 at 01:13:17 PM
Name:  

Arjádre

Comments:  

@WP: yeah... I agree... but it would be useful in helping the IMC to make decisions... there should be a constitution to outline the process: the IMC's next job, along with creating a website!

   
Nov 8th 2005 at 01:07:49 PM
Name:  

Arjádre

Comments:  

@Floeren and Dane

okay... so it seems the site's down (given the fact that so few people have posted today compared with yesterday and that I have tried numerous times on more than one computer and still haven't been able to access it)... so I got here via Google... type in "minesweeper guestbook" (without "") and press "I'm feeling lucky"... it took me right here... thank goodness the guestbook is separate from the site ...of course, maybe my connection is messed up and the guestbook is quiet because people's fingers are exhausted from typing so much yesterday well, whatever

   
Nov 8th 2005 at 11:28:08 AM
Name:  

WP

Comments:  

A voting system for "big" decisions will defeat the whole purpose of IMC.

I say: The decision's made, accept it, you have the right to complain but not to change it. (otherwise it will never end) You may of course disagree.

Happy sweeping, everyone! (yes, even to those who don't agree with me )

   
Nov 8th 2005 at 10:05:20 AM
Name:  

Floeren

Best expert:  

76

Best intermediate:  

21 --> 20

Best beginner:  

2 ( I can prove 3)

Comments:  

Jabadaba f****** DO!
I couldn't prove my 21 because my harddisk crashed, but I can prove my 20 (3BV 32 (close to the edge!!))So I guess I'm number 316 on the best ever now...
What a relief!

   
Nov 8th 2005 at 12:01:51 AM
Name:  

Dane Skabelund

Best expert:  

96

Best intermediate:  

34x3 ---> 31

Best beginner:  

4x2 --> 4x4

Comments:  


   
Nov 7th 2005 at 09:33:59 PM
Name:  

Daniel Brim

Comments:  

Playing NF tonight... getting some good estimates, but no completions

Last one: 82, 120/147

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 06:47:25 PM
Name:  

Arjádre

Best expert:  

Top5: 70,78,79,80,82

Best intermediate:  

Top5: 18, 20, 20 (3BV 25), 21, 21

Best beginner:  

Top5: 1, 2, 2, 2, 3

Comments:  

"Maybe there should be some kind of voting system for BIG questions like the 3bv limit question. Only players in the best-ever could vote and each player could have ONE email address registered and each email address could vote ONCE only. That way everybody who wanted could have a vote and no one could gather their entire family unless he or she made them play enough to get into bestever first!"-Dennis

I agree... except I think it's unfair to exclude some members of the community, such as Dmitriy, and possibly Daniel Brim (although they'll both probably reach bestever very soon anyway) from voting... perhaps the criteria would be bestever status OR IMC approval, rather than only bestever status. After all, one IMC decision was about Dmitriy's game...
@Rasmus: if it makes you feel any better, you still have more sub22s than me, and you're ranking would still be much, much higher than mine in the top25 ranking if I were listed. I'm not listed there or on the clone rankings because my top25 games are all on different clones and clone versions (my 3rd and 4th exp times, for instance, were made before clone v.97 was released, and I also have some top games on Arbiter

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 06:41:47 PM
Name:  

Daniel Brim

Comments:  

@Christoph

"I don't see anyone around here who not at least try to articulate his own point of view and comes not only here to be destructive and spam."

I'm glad you feel my opinion is that way

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 05:46:33 PM
Name:  

Martin Toft Madsen

Comments:  

About the 3BV-limits discussion:

I'm in that "lucky" position I either play very bad or simply blow up any low-3BV boards I might get. Most of the people that have passed me have done it on boards with a lower 3BV than what I did my records on, although not on boards I would consider unfair. I've just come to get used to that I'm better at different board types (ie. boards with a higher 3BV). Long story short, I would probably have a hard time to tell where the limits should be put, because I'm usually not much faster on those boards anyway.

About the Top25-games list:

One could argue it has it's right to existence entirely because I'm number one on the NF part of the list (and that would of course be a completely plausible reason), but in my opinion we ought to have one main list (and that is what I see the bestever list as today). I have nothing against all these lists, I myself often find motivation in some of them, but the bestever should remain as the main list. My main reason for this would be, that all former players also have used this list as the main list, therefore optimizing their playing style to get one good time at each level. If we alter this we also inevitable alter their ranking.

Finally, the rules (3BV limits, accepted clones, etc.) should be written down and put somewhere so it would be easy for anyone at anytime to check the rules and abide them.

@Grégoire: At least I'm not the one setting cars, busses and schools on fire at night

And please, all, remember:
Happy sweeping

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 05:44:16 PM
Name:  

Christoph

Comments:  

@Rasmus&Dion: We work on the presentation/website topic. Of course it cannot be the solution that we just post our decisions here. You'll hear about that soon.

@Robert: You can be sure, we have a lot of emotions, but as members of the IMC we try to keep them out of our discussion in order to find the best solution. That's the very least we have to do to be it worth to be in the IMC

You wanted to hear the opinion of an IMC member concerning 3BV limits, here it is: The 3BV limit discussion was long enougth. Every now and then someone started it again and then everyone started to bring the same arguments again and again in mostly very nasty ways. The point was never, if there should be 3BV limits, since the first MS version already had limits (produced by the random number generator). It started to be a important topic, as clones came along which had better RNGs so they produced a bigger range of boards so also lower 3BV boards. So a decision had to be made how to handle this. We had to put the limits somewhere, and no matter where we would have done it, there'd be always someone for whom that's bad.
But the discussion below sounds like: why limits at all?
If we all would play ONLY and really ONLY for fun, we perhaps wouldn't need limits. But even then: Imagine you play you record on a 30 3BV expert board, a 16 say. And you would never be lucky enought to get a simillary easy board and play only 70s. Wouldn't that suck?
But now I claim that nearly NOONE here plays ONLY for fun. You found this site. So you were interested if there are other players. It was your curiousity that brought you here. And since you wouldn't have felt this curiousity if it was completely unimportant to you how you play compared to other players. But if we want to compare than we have to compare in some reasonable way. 3BV limits are a good attempt in order to give rankings a sense. If we considerd arbitrary easy boards for rankings, every record would be worthless. But isn't it the worth of your record that makes you feel good about it? Most of the people here around voted for the IMC. And from the beginning on it was said that the IMC would have the task to keep the game fair - to decide if we can accept a score or not. So if you wouldn't care at all about easy 3BV boards and cheaters in the rankings, why should you have voted? I think that everyone of you care about the game in his personal way. I don't see anyone around here who not at least try to articulate his own point of view and comes not only here to be destructive and spam. And thatwhy I'm proud to be a member of this community and the IMC.

Email Email    
Nov 7th 2005 at 05:18:22 PM
Name:  

Dion Tiu

Comments:  

Yeah, I agree with an IMC site which could include future votings, recent decisions/explanations, polls etc.

With all these recent discussions about 3BV limits, I'm slighty conflicted about the int limit, but I do respect the IMC's decision. But I do believe we need 3BV limits. I would not like seeing someone equaling any WR without some element of skill.

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 02:41:21 PM
Name:  

Rasmus H. Jensen

Best expert:  

67

Best intermediate:  

21

Best beginner:  

2

Comments:  

Yeah, IMC should have their own section on planet minesweeper or make a new site entirely. It would make it a bit more official than just posting it here in the guestbook.

D*mn you Arjadre! I hope you choke on it when I (in a very short time) improve one of my scores

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 02:09:31 PM
Name:  

Gergely

Comments:  

@Dennis: I already made that suggestion on polls towards IMC
@James & Robert: calm down, guys! Separate your motivation to play minesweeper from community rules.
@Roman: there's a lot more to visit in Budapest And I think 16 players representating Hungary in the first tourny (with practically zero marketing budget) is a good start, even if some of them were not mature enough to compete.

Anyway, I think the IMC should get into the debate Many of us would like to hear some reasons about 3bv limits...

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 01:44:54 PM
Name:  

Daniel Brim

Comments:  

@Arjadre:

Probably the same as those that are on a 29 right now.

BTW... your parents suck.

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 01:34:37 PM
Name:  

Dennis Lütken

Comments:  

Maybe there should be some kind of voting system for BIG questions like the 3bv limit question. Only players in the best-ever could vote and each player could have ONE email address registered and each email address could vote ONCE only. That way everybody who wanted could have a vote and no one could gather their entire family unless he or she made them play enough to get into bestever first!

And perhaps there should be a different vote for every level. That way people could choose to only vote for the levels they actually care about!

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 01:31:03 PM
Name:  

Arjádre

Comments:  

@Rasmus: gonna? more like you're already sick ... feel better! just not anytime soon
@Daniel: so what happens when someone's best time on a 150+ board is on a 181 board?

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 01:21:33 PM
Name:  

Rasmus H. Jensen

Best intermediate:  

21 x 6 -----> 21 x 8

Comments:  

Think I'm gonna be sick

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 01:15:35 PM
Name:  

Daniel Brim

Comments:  

Here's a somewhat radical idea. If you are interested in true skill, why not only accept one range of 3bv for the bestever? Say 10-20 for beginner, 50-70 for int and 150-180 for expert? That way, you get an indication of true skill on that type of 3bv, and you keep an alternate for best sum...

And on a sidenote... missed boards
23 on int (missed 1 3bv, took 3 seconds to find it)
91 on exp (same except 4 seconds)
87 on exp (124/131)

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 12:43:22 PM
Name:  

Robert Benditz

Comments:  

"The higher ranking people in the WR lists want to protect their positions, some of which were obtained even before the clone and the 3bv and the UPK business. That's understandable, yes, but to police themselves and grandfather themselves into the books at the same time?"
It is obvious that we cannot touch the records which were achieved before certain rules have been set. Because you may punish the sweepers who got a 13 on the Dreamboard without knowing about the cycles. That is just. Matt's 10 was declared invalid afterwards because it was a known fact that he knew about the Dreamboard and about the cycles. But even this decision was disputed a lot. You now claim the sweepers at the top try to defend their position by making up unfair rules so that other sweepers will have it more difficult than them. Come on. Do you even know who is in the IMC? Do you know how much these people care? Most of them don't care very much, they don't argue with the passion we are just doing it. Except for Dan and maybe Damien no-one made his records on the the original MS version. Damien repeated or improved them on the the clone, and so did Dan (except for Exp, but UPK is not that easy on expert). Do you mean I am trying to make it harder for others to get by me? I am still improving, I will make new records in spite of the 3BV limits. That is some kind of conspiracy therory you just made up. It is just not the way it is.
"Sounds like some of you DO want to remove some luck from the game." Yes we do. If this came not across clearly, I am sorry.

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 12:32:55 PM
Name:  

James C

Comments:  

I don't actually care about money all that much. But I do believe that others do. Monetary comparisons for arguments sake are usually an effective way to put things into an easily understood perspective. I also did not sell my mother, but if you are interested, she's single.

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 12:29:10 PM
Name:  

James C

Comments:  

Robert, you have always come off as pretty sarcastic and condescending. That's why I know that it's easy to get to you. I should know, because I am that way too. I guess you are going to try to tell me that you don't do the same to me? Yeah, okay. You quote me, I am going to quote you... "It's really fair that I never came across a 1 3BV beg-board but others who played less beginner did." Obviously sarcastic, and quite supporting of my point. The higher ranking people in the WR lists want to protect their positions, some of which were obtained even before the clone and the 3bv and the UPK business. That's understandable, yes, but to police themselves and grandfather themselves into the books at the same time? As George Carlin would say... Don't seem fair to me... don't seem right...

"Yes, even the world record holders have had some luck. But that is part of the game, don't you understand." Uh... I think I made that point exactly, but you seem to have missed the point, as I was not actually talking about minesweeper. "No-one wants to remove luck from the game." Really? Because you seem sore about the lucky 1 3bv beginner boards. Sounds like some of you DO want to remove some luck from the game.

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 12:17:49 PM
Name:  

AreOut

Comments:  

Dmitriy you probably got easier boards than Manuel 25 3bv. Why you havent finished them?! Counts for all others arguing for not accepting it.

Email Email    
Nov 7th 2005 at 12:04:05 PM
Name:  

Robert Benditz

Comments:  

@James C: "What my friend hopsing does not seem to understand is that if everyone played the same version, it would be as fair as fair gets."
Yes, let's all play the Original Minesweeper version. Now that would be fair. Half of the sweepers would be waiting for the Dreamboard because they know the cycles by heart. Good point James.
"...it would be as fair as fair gets." Are you kidding me? You completely disregard the meaning of random board creation. I don't say I am against random board creation, it's part of the game and I don't want the spirit of the game to get lost during this debate but to speak about fairness in this context is illogical. It's really fair that I never came across a 1 3BV beg-board but others who played less beginner did.
Yes, even the world record holders have had some luck. But that is part of the game, don't you understand. No-one wants to remove luck from the game.
"I would also like to point out that none of these records you guys hold so sacred are likely to be found in any edition of Guiness. I would also venture a guess that Roland's 9 would make the cut if Guiness actually were interested."
I don't expect you to understand what Minesweeper records or a high bestever rank mean to many sweepers. I don't give a **** about being in some kind of record book next to the person who sold his mother for 2.000.000 bucks (that may be you).
There's more to it, something philosophical, you don't need to understand but don't blame others for that.

BTW I would bring some money to the gunfight and pay you off because that seems to be most important to you.

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 11:44:28 AM
Name:  

James C

Comments:  

Wow, it is way too easy to get some people worked up. I never actually submitted that 13 to Detrusor as my best time. I never asked him to update my time either. I asked like 3 people for an opinion, and the responses that I got were enough to give it up. I also {purposely} asked people that I knew were opposed to UPK scores. But the responses to my post on here is what is laughable. Exactly as I said.... "I don't want to get passed on the list because someone got lucky..." What my friend hopsing does not seem to understand is that if everyone played the same version, it would be as fair as fair gets. He's probably the kind of guy that would bring a knife to a gun fight and the say it wasn't fair. As far as world records go, I am sure there are a lot of them out there that involve a lot of luck as well. I would also like to point out that none of these records you guys hold so sacred are likely to be found in any edition of Guiness. I would also venture a guess that Roland's 9 would make the cut if Guiness actually were interested.

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 11:37:58 AM
Name:  

chill

Comments:  

When my mind is set, I'll post my opinion about this, but I'm not sure yet how I feel about this discussion so it will take some time.
As for the idea of the 25 best times: I like it, but what about people who just can't prove their 25 best times? I've got 18 sub-70's but 8 of then where made on either Arbiter or older versions of the clone, which I've lost when my computer crashed... At the time I've got 35 games in my history. Obviously this isn't representative for my whole minsweeper 'carreer'. I can't think of any solution for this.
Anyways, I for one will be the last to trouble the IMC with objections, I appreciate their work a lot. So I like the idea and I will support it and keep on reading the debate about the limits and so on.

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 11:37:22 AM
Name:  

Dmitriy

Comments:  

please, stop repeating that the sub30 3bv board may be difficult and may be very easy and blah blah blah. to me, there is not much difference between 25 and 30 3bv boards because i know that if i set a record on 25 3bv board i _will_ do the same on a larger-3bv board next time. that's all.

Elmar set his next 12 on a 46 3bv board and this is the skill. Setting a 11 on a 25 3bv board is just unethical, even if such boards WERE on original minesweeper. So, do we claim that Manuel plays better then Elmar? Maybe somebody claims he cannot get a hi-score because he has no a quite low-3bv board? What is your mission, to have the extra-low times or to be fast? Minesweeper is fun when you rush over the board and win, and i do not call usual lagging (imho) over the low-3bv board a funny thing.

so, please, do not make things tragic. happy sweeping - that's our rule

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 10:39:46 AM
Name:  

AreOut

Comments:  

LOL this was the long post

I really dont think that someone registered his family on yahoo just to increase votes

Point is that you get 1 on beg maybe in a month of playing and you get a sub30 on int almost every fu**ing day that is the prob. As I think you get sub25 every month so thats fair. You maybe wont get sub95 on exp every month but sub97 but Im OK with 95 as I agree that 110-130 on exp are easiest boards, and on clone I got 78 once so going over 95 maybe isnt good for randomness and its fun to get sub100 board

Email Email    
Nov 7th 2005 at 10:08:25 AM
Name:  

Robert Benditz

Comments:  

@WP: Getting a 1 3BV Int or Exp board is indeed a tiny little bit far-fetched, but there has been a 17 3BV Intermediate board. As you know, this may be a difficult board with lots of guess but it may also be an incredibly easy board with only one opening, no guesses and many 1s which are easy to clear for flaggers.
This is the problem.
In my opinion the bestever stands for the best ever players of Minesweeper. To be a great minesweeper you need be fast, accurate, persistent and also lucky. 3BV limits don't prevent you from getting easy boards if you play a lot. You still need to play a lot to get a lot of easy boards. But it prevents people from getting extremely easy boards. As I said, bestever is not only about luck, that is why the 3BV limits have been put by the IMC.
Furthermore the question is not if you play the game for fun, but if you play the game ONLY for fun.
@AreOut: "but I appreciate yahoo poll vote more than IMC" What would you say if I told you that I told all my friends and relatives to register on yahoo and vote for the 3BV limits I want. So much for the legitimation of yahoo-group-polls.
@Manuel: Obviously it's not possible to measure the real pure skill of someone. That is not the aim of 3BV limits. The aim of 3BV limits is to make the bestever list more representative as to the skill of the players without modifying the principles of the game.
@James C aka furious_jim: First off, what you wrote is laughable, but step by step.
"That's not fair for him to have that score, because I have never gotten a low board like that." This is not the point and I am tired from telling people why. The records of someone should represent his overall skills. If a soemones gets a board which easyness is just off the scale and makes his record on it the meaning of the bestever gets lost. This maybe the big problem of some of you. What do you think the bestever is? It is about records and about being the best and about comparing yourself with others. If you don't appreciate being the best at all then why do you bother? Play for yourself with whatever version and with all the cheats you want. You can just sweep your room too if you feel the desire to do that.
If you want to compare yourself with others, and not only your luck but also your Minesweeping abilities then you have to abide by the rules. The rules are made to increase fairness. That is why scores made on the Original Minesweeper version are not accepted anymore.
But my friend James C doesn't seem to understand. He kept on playing the Original Minesweeper version, got a 13 and HE is now WHINING that it is not accepted.
You're next arguement goes like it's just a game you are not paid for it and this takes the fun out of the game for me. I feel sorry for you.
If it is just a game for you then play the game. Just play it and shut up. Have fun. Who keeps you from having fun playing the game the way you want? Nobody.
For some people it is important to be on a high spot on bestever even though they are not paid for it. Like I. Why do you care? What is your problem? I don't need to be paid to want to be the best. You probably don't understand that and you don't have to understand that but I don't want you to insult other people for no reason.
"and the "Player of the Year" gets some kind of large cash bonus, then maybe some of it can be justified." For you money seems to justify a lot, doesn't it? Great guy you are.
Finally, why don't you just quit and stop talking about it?
I hope I didn't make the game totally unplayable for you with what I said.

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 08:11:27 AM
Name:  

Elmar

Comments:  

1st: Top25 was my idea.
2nd: Dennis, you're just lucky I fell asleep and missed the AR deadline.
3rd: I agree about Arbiter and clone rankings.

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 08:11:01 AM
Name:  

Grégoire Duffez

Comments:  

ok Dennis, here's your NF top25: http://www.planet-minesweeper.com/class_clone.php?fichier=top25_nf
Seems that Denmark takes over this ranking, with our Sick Corrupted Mofo as leader
(i just have to fix this stupid error with icons not displaying)
Instead of thinking of retirements, which would be sad, you'd better suggest solutions like i did, because without suggestions, this is endlessy

Email Email     Website Website    
Nov 7th 2005 at 07:53:50 AM
Name:  

Rasmus H. Jensen

Comments:  

Yes Greg! Great idea with the avg 25 list Especially since I moved up 10 places
Sad that so few people have submitted their clone history, it doesn't give an accurate portrait of the best sweepers.

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 07:40:54 AM
Name:  

Dennis Lütken

Comments:  

Forgot to mention how great it feels to be ranked THIRD in the Active Ranking!

Apart from that it's great to see another Dane join the Active Ranking. For those of you who don't know already, Laila is a good frind of mine and she's really the one who got me hooked on Minesweeper because she played it on my computer and I just had to beat her times. By the time I did that I was hooked!

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 07:29:48 AM
Name:  

Dennis Lütken

Comments:  

@Detrusor: I woke up this morning seriously thinking that I might never play Minesweeper again. I still don't know if I will but I love your idea of averaging the 25 best games on each level. There are a couple of things I would like though. The first one is that I would like a similar list, only including NF times. I would love such a list almost as much as I love the non-flagging king list because it makes so much sense to me and really has a lot to do with true speed! I'm glad I got the discussion going and certainly glad to see that some people supported my views! Oh, the second thing I would like to have done is that it should be possible to submit times from Arbiter to the clone rankings. It's a clone and it seems to be accepted so I think one should be able to submit histories from Arbiter to the clone rankings as well.

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 07:14:39 AM
Name:  

Roman Gammel

Comments:  

@Christoph: If you'd like to come to Moscow for 2 days for example it will take about 500 EUR (Flight costs approximately 300)

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 07:00:00 AM
Name:  

Christoph

Comments:  

@Dmitriy: I programmed something similar. We already used it in vienna to view the current ranking with a beamer.

@Gergely: I will come to Budapest for sure.

I will also organize a meeting in vienna again next summer.
@Roman: I don't know, how expensiv it would be for me to come to Moscow. But I'd like to come there if you organize something. (depending on if I can afford it)

concerning 3BV limits: drawing a line somewhere is alwasy difficult and may appear unfair to some, nevertheless it had to be done. Important was in first place the int limit and we came to the conclusion that 30 is the best choice.
Beg is 2 since telling a 1 with one click to be skill is rediculous and putting it 3 is unfair since so many 1 and 2 3BV boards are in the rankings. (even if we would want to clean them away there's no way of detecting all of them properly)
For Exp there just has to be a limit, but it doesn't really matter if it's 99, 100 or 110 since the 'easiest' boards are usually between 110 and 130. (last thing is my personal oppinion)

BTW a remark to fairness: everyone can feel free to disclaim a personal record if he/she thinks it was done on a too easy board - like I did with my 16 which was done on a 20 3BV board.

Email Email    
Nov 7th 2005 at 06:42:09 AM
Name:  

manuel

Comments:  

@Grégoire Duffez
i agree with u,the 13 was on a 30 3bv board ;-)
i think we need two bestever rankings:
one for best times
and one for best skill

or a skill ranking that also shows the best times (both together)

and the imc (or the community) has to find a way to define skill

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 05:26:54 AM
Name:  

Dmitriy

Comments:  

@mainly tournament admins: Concerning Tournaments, i may write the module which will read all the local statistics of players in the real time, so that every sweeper could browse his rank while sweeping.

As the next Arbiter version will have the global logging feature for the total time spent on playing, percent of finished games etc, this tournament module would be quite useful.. of course, if computers would be connected through local net. So, all participating sweepers could browse the global tournament statistics in the realtime and this may force them to play faster (and win).
---
initial data that may be browsed (may be divided by levels):

- what are sweeper_N's time records for "now"
- the average speed
- how many games completed
- summary rank of best N games
- percentage of finished games
- percentage of blasted games
- ...
---
i am opening a thread for this module discussion.

Email Email     Website Website    
Nov 7th 2005 at 05:10:43 AM
Name:  

Roman Gammel

Comments:  

I don't really understand why most of people here are saying that in our game there is not only skill but also a luck and 3BV limits make luck aspect insignificant. Who deprives you of a luck in minesweeper?? 3BV limits?

The first thing you have to do is to finish the game, 3BV limits are only secondary thing - you have to do something to make your finished game sensible - minimum programme. 3BV restriction doesn't deprive you any of luck, there is a bunch of different 3BV 30 boards which are complex in different kind - here is your luck!!

@Gergely: I'd like to participate in next minesweeper tournament. But I prefer to visit more cities/countries, Budapest is very nice city, but maybe somebody else will organize such tournament somewhere else? I think I can do it in Moscow, but I'm not sure anybody except Robert Benditz will come - that would be complicated and expensive. It would be nice if some of our German of French friends will organize it, they have big national communities and it could provide more players.

Email Email    
Nov 7th 2005 at 04:58:32 AM
Name:  

Grégoire Duffez

Comments:  

@James C: don't confuse the UPK issue and the limits problem. Barely everyone is opposed to UPK... If you are still convinced that playing MS is acceptable, try to answer this question: if i do a 8 sec on the dreamboard, will you accept it, since you can't prove that I already played it? No, of course. And because no one can prove that someone played or not this or that board, we MUST refuse ANY board done on MS version (for intermediate)

My opinion about limits:
1. I don't want to prevent ppl from having fun by getting a good time (record) on low boards, but these can't count in front of other records.
2. I definitely don't want to see someone getting the WR or just pass me because of an ultra low 3bv board

If ever someone gets an 8 or a 9 on a low 3bv board (for example the so so so simple 22 3bv that Dennis got (if i remember correctly)), the WR is simply ruined, and has no sense at all!!
You talk about the skill to achieve an 11 on Manuel's board... stop kidding!! 90% of ppl who finish this board will do their record on it! I have nothing against Manuel, but I don't think he has the skill of an 11 (I'd rather think he has the skill of his 13 )

No one ever told that bestever means best SCORES ever. Why not best PLAYERS ever?
If I had to choose, i would choose a skill ranking and not a best times one.
By the way, I've done (ty Elmar) a new ranking which shows a greater idea of the skill, by taking the average time of the 25 best games for each player: see it here http://www.planet-minesweeper.com/class_clone.php?fichier=top25

My solutions:
1. have an agreement about which "bestever" we want
2. let the clones have low 3bv boards, but in another mode than classic one
3. put limits for the skill ranking

Email Email     Website Website    
Nov 7th 2005 at 03:33:44 AM
Name:  

Gergely

Comments:  

Looks like first-time IMC decision made the whole community active So I'm riding this wave and ask you if you are to come to Budapest for the second winter minesweeper meeting here in the second part of February?
I know it's very far away but I'd like to get some sponsors which is not an easy task to do, so I have to start it soon. The more players come the easier to convince sponsors You don't have to be 100% sure, it's enough to have the intention. I'd also like to dedicate the occasion to popularizing the game, so it would have a show-kind part with only the best players playing while people just watching.

Email Email    
Nov 7th 2005 at 03:08:11 AM
Name:  

James C

Comments:  

Very well said, Manuel. As far as what Dennis said about quitting, well, that's kinda true, too. I have been posting here or at least reading all the posts for about a year and a half, and there has been a constant bickering almost the whole time about who made what score on what board and how it's not fair for some stupid reason or another. It's ridiculous. I made a 13 that I'll probably never beat anyway, but no, that can't count because somebody else once posted a screenshot of the board somewhere. Then somebody else gets a record on a low board and it's like "That's not fair for him to have that score, because I have never gotten a low board like that." What kind of fun is this? That is why I am still in favor of original MS, because at least that way people don't lose site of the fact that it's just a **** game. The bestever list is a list of the best ever scores, not players. When the little box pops up, the computer doesn't know who the hell is playing, it just knows that a new time was set. It's not like you are getting paid to advance up in the ranks. Some of the top players here are such whiners it's pathetic. When minesweeper picks up corporate sponsers, and the top weekly players cash a check, and the "Player of the Year" gets some kind of large cash bonus, then maybe some of it can be justified. Until then, it's just retarded whining and it really is taking the fun out of the game.

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 02:41:15 AM
Name:  

Ralph

Best intermediate:  

NF 29 sec ---> 19 sec !!!! (overall 18, 19x2)

Comments:  

back to some time talk...

Been practicing a bit of NF - not sure what 3bv this board was, I was playing on my laptop on the original version! It was probably quite an easy board tho

Meanwhile on the clone I got a very nice 20.13 secs on a 52 3bv board last night

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 02:30:02 AM
Name:  

Manuel

Comments:  

my opinion:
the people who support the limits want that the bestever shows the skill of a player and not how much luck he got.
i think best time and skill is sth different
so u can never see ones skill by just looking at his best times.
if we want a ranking that shows skill we need a new one
the current bestever ranking shows the BEST times EVER achieved on minesweeper and it doesnt care on what 3bv board. and so u cant compare the skill of the players listed on bestever.

on the clone i finished two 25 3bv boards in 4500 games. i also had a 22 3bv board but i didn't finish.
i think everyone could get a low 3bv board and it isn't a matter of luck, its just a matter of time and it is part of the game.
so limit 3bv in the programm and change this part of the game and not just dont accept low 3bv board records

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 02:19:44 AM
Name:  

Arjádre

Comments:  

...has anyone else noticed how really low 3BV boards often have lots of mines packed into tiny clumps that are impossible to navigate? if you don't believe me, play a few intermediate games with 3BV restricted at 3BV<30 or expert with 3BV <110

   
Nov 7th 2005 at 12:49:31 AM
Name:  

AreOut

Comments:  

I really dunno who is IMC but I appreciate yahoo poll vote more than IMC and there is 2-25-90 average however Im with 2-25-95 as it would reflect real limits of original game.

Manuel had luck but everyone who can sub60 on expert and he definitely can should do 12 on that board so dont see prob with his game even though he beat my 12 but I dont care, he had luck AND enough knowledge to finish that. You sub60ers like Hopsing and Detrusor try to play it and tell me your time on first and second try.

Email Email    
Nov 7th 2005 at 12:01:09 AM
Name:  

WP

Comments:  

Okay, here goes:

Robert: I doubt that anyone will ever get 1 3bv on inter or expert. That is why I think we don't need limits. I agree, higher 3bv boards might sometimes turn out easier than low 3bv boards (it also depends on where you happen to click to start the game)

I didn't criticise the IMC for coming up with these limits. It's something that's got to be done, even though there might be people who don't agree with their decisions. (hey, does everyone in a country have to agree when the government puts a new law into place?) And I didn't raise objections before because I felt that they would have been pointless.

I don't play the original minesweeper with its cycles (as you put it) because I like seeing my stats on the clone, and I like being able to take videos of my games! The cycles wouldn't bother me though, I don't go around memorising boards, I don't even remember what the dreamboard looks like!

And I DO play the game for fun. That's why we say "happy sweeping", don't we? ^_^

   
Nov 6th 2005 at 10:27:37 PM
Name:  

Traian

Comments:  

Dude, something's wrong with your parents.

   
Nov 6th 2005 at 08:12:44 PM
Name:  

Arjádre

Comments:  

my parents have wiped minesweeper and all related programs (including the clones and my vids) from my computer... ...so if someone else wants to continue the UPK contest in my place, go ahead... but e-mail me first...note new address...

there should be a better way of determining board difficulty than simple 3BV... when someone gets a record on a sub30 3BV board, the IMC should view the video and decide, on a case-by-case basis whether the record should be accepted. Keep in mind that records in question would occur so rarely that this would not create an unreasonable burden for the IMC...

about my 1: yeah... talk about luck... but it takes skill to click that fast ... and to form such a complex begin-game stategy ... even so, I'll understand if you don't want to accept it... if not, my best time on a super2 3BV board on beginner is 2,62 on a 4...

the problem with disqualifying old games done by retired players is that it would be hard to find out their second-best times... even so, I believe a few DB records are still included on bestever, and that debate ended a long time ago Btw, I have never encountered a sub105 expert board on the clone without the 3BV filter (I think), but I'm sure many of us have encountered sub30 boards on intermediate. maybe the limit should reflect this- either 2-25-99 or 2-30-110 (because we all know that 1 3BV is pure luck)

remember- minesweeper is a GAME that should be played for fun, even if most playing is addiction- and/or compulsion- induced. relax...

sorry for writing so much...

Email Email     Website Website    
Nov 6th 2005 at 02:08:46 PM
Name:  

Dmitriy

Comments:  

Please, stop for a while and think of Dion's int 11 seconds on a 56 3BV board.

---
Do you really care that you could get the 30 3BV board instead of 25? You really have more reasons to quit with such injustice? Yeah, Manuel is extra-lucky man and such debates raised only because you see injustice that you have not such "easy" record. We want to get the same record, or to prohibit it.

You see, the problem of setting a record is not only to "get a very-low-3bv board". I think most of your records were done on the golden-middle boards, when you are quite warmed up and board does not contain extra-smart patterns.

   
Nov 6th 2005 at 01:14:23 PM
Name:  

Robert Benditz

Comments:  

"it's not less fun that you can't subscribe records to bestever achieved on 30-minus int boards. Everyone in the community knows your skills and if you had achieved a low score on sucha board the only difference it would have made is that you would have been called lucky b*stard"
@Gergely: I don't see your point. You say it's of no importance if records achieved on <30 3BV boards count for bestever or not. In the next sentence your write that everyone knows your skills anyway. Do you know why that so is? Partly because he is on the bestever list. Basically you say first that the limits (and therefore the bestever-list) have no meaning because you play for some other reason like fun etc. and in the next sentence you contradict yourself by saying that it only doesn't matter because you are already known for your skill (among other things like posting times on this guestbook because you are on the bestever).

   
Nov 6th 2005 at 12:52:21 PM
Name:  

Robert Benditz

Comments:  

circles=cycles
..and the number of MINES ..

"It seems unfair that just because he got his 11 shortly before the decision his 11 is accepted, whereas if I got one today on a 29 3bv board it would NOT be accepted."
@Dennis: Just accept it as the luck that you seem to like so much.

   
Nov 6th 2005 at 12:50:46 PM
Name:  

Daniel Brim

Best intermediate:  

2.20 3bv/s-->2.45 3bv/s (35 on an 84)

Best beginner:  

1.79 3bv/s --->1.88 3bv/s (99 on a 185)

Comments:  

Yay... total up to 8.02

@Rodrigo, Dmitriy:

Can you make it so the games limited by the new limits don't come up except in cheat mode?

   
Nov 6th 2005 at 12:48:59 PM
Name:  

Emar

Comments:  

@WP: There won't be a problem of refusing scores obtained on 29 3bv boards while accepting those achieved on 30 3bv boards, simply because there won't be anymore 29 3bv boards once the limits are implemented in the clone's board generation.

   
Nov 6th 2005 at 12:41:05 PM
Name:  

Robert Benditz

Comments:  

And if you want to argue that you don't care if someone gets a 1-1-1 record because luck is just part of the game then why do you bother to argue at all about 3BV-limits for bestever-records.
Just play the game and have fun. Why don't you play the original Minesweeper with its circles and why don't you program a clone in which the board size and the number of boards is also part of the randomization process.
I want the bestever to show the best players at Minesweeper without changing the game's basics. That's why it is called bestever.

   
Nov 6th 2005 at 12:26:14 PM
Name:  

Robert Benditz

Comments:  

If I get a 1 3BV board on Int and a 1 3BV board on Expert then you will just say "Grats"?
Yes, these are extreme examples but they may happen and somewhere there must be a border because such boards are possible. Yes there is a only a little difference between a 29 and a 30 3BV board. But that is not the point, the 30 3BV board may be easier than the 29 3BV board, heck, even a 45 3BV board can be easier than a 25 3BV board as you know. But somewhere there must be a limit because otherwise extremely easy boards may appear. 3BV distribution and the analysis of low 3BV boards has shown that 30 is an acceptable limit.
The aim of the IMC is not to change the game but to find a compromise between the influence of luck and skill.
BTW: Why didn't you mention your objections before. The discussion about 3BV limits has been raised numerous times before.

   
Nov 6th 2005 at 12:14:25 PM
Name:  

Ralph

Comments:  

I thought the 3bv limit debate ended ages ago! i thought that the idea was to match the limits with the limits of the actual game.

for me, minesweeper has never really been about luck anyway. the idea is that you practice and keep playing so that your skill improves. then eventually a relatively easy board comes up, and if there are no guesses involved and you make no mistakes then you might get a record.

beginner is a little more tricky. it does require no skill whatsoever to complete a 1 3bv beginner board in 1 sec. having said that, with all due respect to Arjádre, his 1 sec game was simply two random clicks anyway!!

it would be unfair to start messing with the rules too much. the aim of the game is to get the fastest time, regardless of the board complexity. its not just about waiting for a low 3bv board - i've lost count of how many times i've messed up on a low 3bv board.

and anyway Robert, i have loads of fun playing intermediate!!

   
Nov 6th 2005 at 12:12:30 PM
Name:  

Gergely

Comments:  

sorry for bad english - I'm quite tired

   
Nov 6th 2005 at 12:11:50 PM
Name:  

Gergely

Comments:  

Dennis, I do agree with you - every but one point: it's not less fun that you can't subscribe records to bestever achieved on 30-minus int boards. Everyone in the community knows your skills and if you had achieved a low score on sucha board the only difference it would have made is that you would have been called lucky b*stard
Btw, I don't feel affected by these limits as I've never got such low 3bv boards

   
Nov 6th 2005 at 12:08:50 PM
Name:  

WP

Comments:  

No, you're not the only one who thinks that way, Dennis. As I've said once before, if anyone's lucky enough to get a low 3bv board AND finish it quickly, I'll say "congrats!" The problem with 3bv limits is that now, a record on a 30 3bv board will be accepted and one on a 29 3bv board will not. And there is so little difference between these two...

On the other hand, I think that 1 3bv for beginner is different because there you only need the luck to get the board, not the luck to finish it (it's finished as soon as you start it)

But in the end, if we don't have limits, we complain, if we have, we still complain! So let's just get sweeping, people! Nothing beats the sense of accomplishment when you beat a record!

   
Nov 6th 2005 at 10:57:50 AM
Name:  

Dennis Lütken

Comments:  

I do like the kind of luck it takes to get 1 3bv beginner board and finish it in 1 second...

Anyway, I just tried out Arbiter cheat mode with 3bv limit set below 40. I wanted 30-40 but since that wasn't possible I had to make do with this. I happened to get a 22 3bv board and finish it in 9.94 seconds. I'm not saying it would have been fair if I had actually gotten that board when playing the ordinary int mode but I AM saying that I would think it was spectacular and it wouldn't make me think the game was any less fun, even though I'd know that I'd never be able to break my record again. If somebody else got a 9 on a board like that I wouldn't mind either. I seem to be alone on this but that's okay.

   
Nov 6th 2005 at 10:25:04 AM
Name:  

Robert Benditz

Comments:  

And don't worry you can still have fun with the game as it is but you won't be listed with your 8 on a 24 3BV board on bestever. But the bestever is also about skill, not only about luck. It's up to you.

   
Nov 6th 2005 at 10:22:27 AM
Name:  

Robert Benditz

Comments:  

Luck is still part of the game. Do you like the amount of luck you need to finish a 1 3BV beg board in 1 sec?

   
Nov 6th 2005 at 10:09:22 AM
Name:  

Dennis Lütken

Comments:  

If all I cared about was my actual skill level I could play cheat mode with 30-40 3bv without ever hitting F3. That way if I finished a board in 10 or 11 seconds I could say that I'm good enough to be able to get a 10 or an 11. But none of you would think I should be credited with that score, even though it represents my level of play and no luck was involved, or at least not the kind of luck that comes from extremely low 3bv boards. I think luck SHOULD be part of the game. It always has been part of Minesweeper and by taking away that dimension, I for one will certainly find the game much less interesting. Well, if this can make me lose interest in the game and quit I suppose it wouldn't be such a bad thing. I'm wasting too much time on the game anyway. I just never thought THAT would be the reason why I'd quit.

   


  First Page
  Prev Page
  Post
  Home
Next Page  
Last Page  
Viewing Page 40 of 53 (Total Entries: 5262)


powered by Powered by Bravenet bravenet.com