Viewing Page 4 of 53 (Total Entries: 5262) |
![]() |
|
Nov 30th 2006 at 10:51:01 PM |
|
Name: |
Nikolaj |
Comments: |
OMG Rogen you´re unbelieavable ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 30th 2006 at 02:59:12 PM |
|
Name: |
Schu (Andrew McCauley) |
Comments: |
Incredible Rogen!!! Grats! |
![]() |
|
Nov 30th 2006 at 01:33:42 PM |
|
Name: |
Roman Gammel |
Best expert: |
SUB 60 NF TOTAL 1-13-45=59!!! |
Comments: |
Thanks!! |
![]() |
|
Nov 30th 2006 at 01:22:09 PM |
|
Name: |
Jake |
Best expert: |
NF 52 |
Comments: |
Very nice Rogen!!!!! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 30th 2006 at 01:21:35 PM |
|
Name: |
Jake |
Best expert: |
NF 52 |
Comments: |
Very nice Rogen!!!!! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 30th 2006 at 01:16:15 PM |
|
Name: |
AreOut |
Comments: |
Grats Romel, really stunning game! ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 30th 2006 at 01:10:35 PM |
|
Name: |
Roman Gammel |
Best expert: |
NEW NF WORLD RECORD 47,13 -> 45,941 |
Comments: |
AAAAAAAAAAA!! AMAZING BOARD, 3BV 114! STILL CAN'T BELIEVE! My third sub50 NF. Also today I got new personal best 3BV/s NF on exp - 3.14. |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 30th 2006 at 10:01:13 AM |
|
Name: |
Dmitriy |
Comments: |
holy cow, Tam! ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 30th 2006 at 09:06:21 AM |
|
Name: |
AreOut |
Comments: |
Neeeein, mit solchem nicht-deutschem Namen ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 30th 2006 at 08:26:02 AM |
|
Name: |
Thomas |
Best intermediate: |
15,20 (15*1 lol)-->14,64!!! |
Comments: |
/me int game --> Time: 14,64 «» Est Time: 14,64 «» 3BV: 38 / 38 «» 3BV/s: 2,78 «» Rank Time: 1 «» Rank 3bv/s: 440 «» RPI: 90,82 «» IOS: 1,39 «» RQP: 5,26 «» Games: 2393 «» Cl/s: 4,32 I'm working on formulating my ideas ;) ![]() Problem is, my parents banned me almost completely from sweeping because my grades arent looking good at the moment (I have time on SA though). So that might take a while. @Christian: Sounds cool! Maybe take into account the fact that a chord can clear to all sides if used most efficiency? Start at 100 and estimate the average best possible efficiency per chord, and then do the same with 250. Draw a diagram between the values for 100 and 250, and make it represent the constant needed to divide 3bv by when estimating difficulty. That would be my first impulse, but then again I have absolutely no experience in that area ![]() Kann es sein, dass du deutsch sprichst? |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 30th 2006 at 08:22:56 AM |
|
Name: |
AreOut |
Comments: |
Well because I am too and know how "we" think ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 30th 2006 at 07:52:55 AM |
|
Name: |
Christian F |
Comments: |
Thanks a lot for the answers. Apparently there are already some attempts to get those statiscs better. If I have some idea concerning this, I will write again. @AreOut: Why do you think I`m a physicist? - I neither sent a photo of mine, nor a photo of my lab... ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 30th 2006 at 04:56:37 AM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
Schu is working on OBV, which he hopes will eliminate all errors from other methods (it looks at openings, 3bv and many other factors)...but it is not finished. 3BV/s tries to measure solving speed (better players always have better 3BV/s), but 3BV/s is always higher on 'hard' boards and lower on 'easy' 3BV boards. Most 3BV/s records are on boards over 200 3BV. If the record for Intermediate (about 5.8 3BV/s) was applied to the easiest board allowed (30 3BV), the world record would be 6 seconds or less...but this never happens. RQP tries to measure skill by combining time and 3BV/s. 4 3BV/s on a 10s game is much better than 6 3BV/s on a 20s game. This gets rid of most bad influence from 'easy' and 'hard' boards. IOE measures efficiency....IOE=1 means your total clicks=total 3BV. Flagging lets you go higher than 1 (I think record is 1.46 on Beginner). Check /dictionary.html It would be excellent if you invented a better way to measure efficiency, or had more ideas. There are a lot of good math people here. |
![]() |
|
Nov 30th 2006 at 03:58:47 AM |
|
Name: |
AreOut |
Comments: |
Physiker eh?! ![]() I dunno if you are familiar with OBV but if you are not, search the guestbook and you will find answers about this "problem" ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 30th 2006 at 03:40:40 AM |
|
Name: |
Christian Fluechter |
Comments: |
Hello! I have one question for all the experts in this forum here (i learned a lot a about minesweeper just by reading this guestbook). It came to my attention, that my 3bv/s values are always higer for boards with higher 3bv. I know, that the 3bv is not a absolute measure for the difficulty of a board, but at least some estimation. But the 3bv/s seems really to have systematic errors. Example: If you distribute mines homogeniously on a borad so that there are no windows anymore, you can do this with 9 mines on a beginners board for example, then the 3bv is rather high (around 70). If you use flagging effectivly and get lets say 1 click per second, the you will finish after around 30 clicks and get a 3bv/s of more than 2. If you redistribute the mines then, so that flagging brings no advantage anymore, you will only get a 3bv/s of around 1 (1 click/s). So the bare numbers tell you, that you are much better on "hard" boards, but this is not true. So in my opinion the 3bv/s can not be used as a measure for the efficiency of a player because there is a systematic error in it, at least if you use flagging (in contrast to the 3bv that only has a unsystematic error (its like a gaussian curve)). As a scientist the first thing that comes to my mind would be to introduce a correction fuction that roughly takes the advantage of flagging on a certain board into account to get the 3bv/s at least as accuate as the 3bv. Up to now I dont know how, but will contiune thinking about it. What is your oppinion? Is there a systematic error? Have you experienced the same things? Were there already attempts to solve this? Thanks, Chris |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 30th 2006 at 03:11:18 AM |
|
Name: |
Ace |
Best intermediate: |
14x13 -> 14x14 (yesterday) |
Comments: |
@Arjadre : it also started like this for me. Very bad syndrome in sight!! ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 30th 2006 at 03:02:03 AM |
|
Name: |
AreOut |
Comments: |
Way to copy me Arjadre! ![]() Btw is that 41 pure coincidence?! ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 30th 2006 at 12:28:59 AM |
|
Name: |
Tam Minh Bui |
Comments: |
Yup, this is the second time I've lc'd a 12-second game. Congrats on your RQP record, and it's NF too!! Two NF 14's, that's amazing ![]() Oh, and that random clicking game is also awesome and funny to watch ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 29th 2006 at 10:11:36 PM |
|
Name: |
Arjádre |
Comments: |
erm... sorry about that stretching ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 29th 2006 at 10:08:05 PM |
|
Name: |
Arjádre (Aryeh D. if you must know) |
Best expert: |
58 |
Best intermediate: |
14x2=>14x3 |
Best beginner: |
1 |
Comments: |
14.819 secs @ 38 3BV @ 2.75 3BV/s @ 5.389 RQP 3rd best time, best RQP ![]() 14.819ona383bvboardat2.7503bvsand5.389RQP0.691IOE.mvf) Also got a 18@56 and a lc18@54 and a nifty expert game that survived about 40 random clicks before blasting (http://www.metanoodle.com/minesweeper/upload/arjadre/41clicks.mvf) @Tam: OW!!!! is that the second one you've lc'd? good luck winning one soon ![]() @Schu & DB: thanks for the IMC nomination. I don't have time right now to write up a rant, but I will soon ![]() VC: X9SU |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 29th 2006 at 08:04:30 PM |
|
Name: |
Tam Minh Bui |
Comments: |
AEGNAJKENGEKGNAKGANGAK ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 29th 2006 at 05:13:54 PM |
|
Name: |
Tam Minh Bui |
Best beginner: |
1 (x14) |
Comments: |
Beginner game 19949: 1,91 on a 5 board I am done with beginner. A weird realization finally struck me that any further goals would be ridiculous and too hard to chase. And I am afraid of carpal tunnel. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 29th 2006 at 05:06:26 PM |
|
Name: |
Schu (Andrew McCauley) |
Comments: |
@ Joni: Much better! As long as you can get the pausing cheat sorted (shouldn't be hard since you're recording all actions) and the shifts aren't too small to make a dreamboard-like problem, I could imagine supporting that. However I think there's another way to detect the mines without even the pixel: some system status that allows the pixel thing or something, and I'd want to check that out too. |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 29th 2006 at 04:50:35 PM |
|
Name: |
joni |
Comments: |
@AreOut: Apparently I didn't explain myself very well. I am not concerned about the "looks" of the game. I'd simply like to play the games (boards) the original minesweeper gives me. @Schu: The fact you can disable it it's not nice, but STILL not enough to stop me ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 29th 2006 at 11:12:48 AM |
|
Name: |
Dmitriy |
Comments: |
Nice job, Elmar! lol, i am still in top308 players on merged list last expert game i played on 12th Aug 2006 :P uhmm... M3UX... this sux, obviously ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 29th 2006 at 07:10:13 AM |
|
Name: |
AreOut |
Comments: |
Its quite stupid using winmine when you can have msx with the same skin as original, or clone for that matter. Well maybe not if you are hooked to UPKing... ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 29th 2006 at 05:33:38 AM |
|
Name: |
Schu (Andrew McCauley) |
Comments: |
The problem is that you can undo the cheat by retyping the code, so you can check on a board with the cheat, disable the cheat, and continue on your merry way. To test, type the cheat code, and to disable it, put your cursor over an indicated mine so the pixel disappears, and type the code. If you do it somewhere safe so the pixel shows, the pixel will stay no matter what in that spot until you close the program! This means that a dot-detection wouldn't help unless it detected for all the time since the program was opened or the last restart. A somewhat outlandish restriction I think. And after all that, it would be difficult to detect the cheat if someone hid that pixel in any number of ways. Sorry Joni, I don't see a way (yet) that I could agree with allowing winmine for the best ever. |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 29th 2006 at 05:04:39 AM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
Check out the Ultimate Minesweeper Hall of Fame with 632 players. ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 29th 2006 at 03:02:22 AM |
|
Name: |
Thomas |
Comments: |
Then I would say that winmine has a much better case. I dont have time to write a lot now, but you're right joni, what I wrote wasnt very clear, and I will try and reformulate my ideas as soon as I have time. Unfortunately, I'm at school ATM and dont have time. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 09:16:49 PM |
|
Name: |
Jake |
Best intermediate: |
NF 3.94 3bv/s |
Comments: |
Rogen, you pig manipulator!!!! Grats on the sup4 NF; I'll get you yet! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 05:33:56 PM |
|
Name: |
joni |
Comments: |
I think I had read about that on the wikipedia page, but that was a long while ago and apparently I had erased that completely from memory ![]() I see your problem with it, both Schu's and Tommys cases, and now I understand a post by Arjadre some time ago mentioning the same thing Schu said. I was scared by Tommy's depiction of it, it looked like it was a bug that was always there and you were tempted to look there at any moment and only your will would stop you from doing it. Fortunately it's not like that, If Lasse is on a 39 and has a 50-50 guess left, looking top-left won't help him, unless he has previously decided to type in the cheating code each and every time he starts minesweeper. The only thing that concerns me now is, is this reversable? is there any x2y2z2 code that can make you go from cheat mode back to normal mode? if there is not, my not so extended knowledge on windows programming, makes me think something can still be done. What if a better recorder that somehow is able to monitor that crazy pixel and put this information on the video (like the clone does with UPK videos for example) would you still be against winmine expert for the rankings? (I already asked this to Schu privately, but I put this here because I also wanted to know other people's opinions, Tommy's for example, and Christophs too on the whole winmine matter.) |
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 04:01:24 PM |
|
Name: |
Schu (Andrew McCauley) |
Comments: |
I should add here that the main danger in the winmine cheat is not people getting to cheat their way out of 50/50s like Tommy said or anything like that, nor is it to help solving: it is that you can do this cheat before the game and have full information about the board, know where all the openings are, never have to guess, or even really solve, you can even UPK the board if you have the patience to draw it up on a clone and do that. I believe Martin toft Madsen of someone made a video with that method, just to show the danger, not to cheat. But anyone could, and it would be hard to spot as a cheat. If windows puts out a version of minesweeper that isn't cheatable, that I'd consider supporting for rankings. |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 02:38:49 PM |
|
Name: |
Schu (Andrew McCauley) |
Comments: |
@ Joni: You don't know about the shift-xyzzy cheat on winmine? You can do that and a little dot appears to tell whether a square is a mine or not. that's what Thomas is talking about. I think we'd all love to be able to trust people not to use winmine in such a way, but until there's a version that doesn't have cheats, it must surely not be allowed for rankings if we have a better alternative. |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 02:36:18 PM |
|
Name: |
WP |
Comments: |
Joni, I like your last paragraph ;) That's why I'm for keeping things simple, and changing the minimum. Thomas: about the timer, I think I misunderstood you earlier, and I didn't stop to think the whole thing over...(oops :P) and I'm also too lazy to go over the details again. I'm just not a very "stats" person. I'm just pushing for simplicity (as I said earlier, correlation with Winmine for integer scores works for me) And no, no, no, we do not need decimals in rankings!! (and here we go again... ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 02:02:07 PM |
|
Name: |
joni |
Comments: |
Thomas, it's nice you're ethusiastic and you're trying to express your ideas, some of them are very interesting and you seem to be very well prepared in what you're talking about, but I think that maybe you could express yourself a little more clearly. Maybe you could take some more time when writing a post. for example, I didn't understand the "extreme" case you mentioned about the intereger rating vs decimal, maybe its because I'm really tired, but it doesn't make sense to me... lets say A has 1,99+19,99+59,99=81,97 (i suppose you're talking minesweeper times and not realtimes, although you maybe should have specified that) then he would have integer scores of 1+19+59=79 B has 2,00-19,00-58,00=79,00, and integer rating of 79. B is ranked higher because of better expert time. (as I was writing the post I understood where your error stood exactly, but you must had double-checked that because it sounded illogical that someone with worse times could be 2 seconds faster because of rounding). I don't understand very well what you mean about winmine either, but that is more because I don't have your knowledge I think... "look up at the top-left corner when you get a guess?" that doesn't make much sense to me in solving terms, and if it's something unrelated to solving (i.e. bug), i don't want to know it at all. I LIKE to play "minesweeper" at times you know, and by that word I mean "winmine" (no I'm not a fan of Microsoft!). I like the games there much more that the clones or arbiters... why? I have no idea, maybe it's just psychological, maybe there's something magical in the original game that the clones fail to catch, being "merely" clones. Having lots of stats is nice as you say, but I'd trade those with the minesweeper (read winmine) gameplay I've learned to love the old rusty recorder despite the non-continuous playing of videos and the fact that he's unreliable at times, just because it gives me the pleasure of having my winmine videos recorded (at times). What if someone doesn't care about playing Gaussian distribution minesweeper, or exponential curves minesweeper, or bell graph minesweeper or whatever (math guys forgive me for the wrong use of those terms)... but "simply" wants to play "minesweeper" and one day he gets a good time at the "minesweeper" expert level and records it and you say it's invalid because it must be Gaussian minesweeper for that to be valid? Invalidating things is way to easy, I think, the real challenge is to do something to improve things... I hope this post is consistent enough, I just wanted to write about an issue which I particularly care about. I'll end it here. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 11:30:57 AM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
@jake: 6-35-99 ... this is the cosmic ratio destined for humanity, and is (coincidentally) the scores required to join my site.... |
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 09:37:56 AM |
|
Name: |
Jake |
Best beginner: |
1.93? |
Comments: |
I think one way of resolving what to do with beginner (a lot of people don't like having it on BE as is) is to make a minimum 3bv=6 or something. Maybe even as high as 10. It would really get rid of a lot of the "more lucky than good" games. |
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 09:33:08 AM |
|
Name: |
Ian |
Comments: |
Well, I could put a whole new spin on the timer thing by going into the Timer Jump issue: Hopefully everyone knows how this works; in early winmine the timer starts at 1 and jumps to 2 sometime in the first second, whenever the computer clock moves 1 second on. So, a time of say 2.43 would be 1.43 realtime seconds, but that could be 0.44 actual seconds, because the timer could have gone to 2 in the first hundredth of a second. In fact, the range of actual realtime times is 0.44 - 1.43, so I think the recorded value should be mid-way between, i.e. 0.94... so a 2 would become a 0! Also, if someone doesn't use Recorder and gets '2', then that could have been anywhere from 1 to 2 realtime seconds ignoring timer jump, so could have been anywhere from 0 to 2 seconds accounting for the jump. So the recorded time would be "1.00" Hope this helps, Old Ian (hey to new Ian btw) |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 09:23:37 AM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
@Elmar: just refresh your internet history. countryselect does not exist...it is now called country.php (you need to refresh the menu in the left frame, called menu.html) |
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 09:15:37 AM |
|
Name: |
Daniel Brim |
Comments: |
@Kolar: Oh I know, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. |
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 09:11:28 AM |
|
Name: |
Thomas |
Comments: |
@DB: I already wrote that I dont want these scores kicked out! All I want to do is not accept winmine anymore in the future. And as to 0.5 seconds being more of an issue on int, that holds true for whole seconds and integer rankings as well... Sorry if I'm starting to sound like a politician BTW ;) VC=P8EY POOEY ?!? |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 08:51:24 AM |
|
Name: |
Daniel Brim |
Comments: |
If all high scores on BE were on a clone, I would be in favor of a decimal rating. But then there's the issue of 0.5 seconds on int being more significant than 0.5 on exp, and then there's the issue of beginner high scores being almost complete dumb luck and and and.... Oh yeah, and there's still all of the older scores from winmine. Just stuff to consider |
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 08:48:42 AM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
The requested URL /minesweeper/countryselect.html was not found on this server. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 08:34:20 AM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
talking about rankings, my 42 isnt up yet! and I have a better 12: 12.59 3bv45+ (cf link) ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 08:26:54 AM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
@ian: if you'd like to get in the rankings, email me. nice job! |
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 08:14:38 AM |
|
Name: |
Ian |
Best expert: |
98 |
Best intermediate: |
33 |
Best beginner: |
4 |
Comments: |
Hey, I just went under 100sec for expert for the first time, 98. I'm well chuffed. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 08:04:43 AM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
Decimal rankings: for two months after Dion became world ranked #1, my decimal total was better...and my decimal total is still better than Oli. ![]() If anyone would like to write their ideas in the form of an article (any length), I will create an article section on the site. I like the idea of letting good players have their own 'rant' sections, just as i've started individual upload folders (upload folders will eventually turn into some really nice pages). |
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 07:24:01 AM |
|
Name: |
Thomas |
Comments: |
It makes sense, but it yields the same problem as schus point two, a decimal score of 12.xxx is an integer score of 13. And I believe that integer scores are too inexact to use them in rankings. I think that rankings should be decimal, as otherwise someone with, say, 1,99+19,99+59,99=81,97 can pwn someone with 2,00-19,00-58,00=81,00 by 2 seconds on an integer-based ranking. And even if that example is a little extreme, things like that could still happen. If we can measure the time we take to play in hundredths, why shouldnt we use the oppurtunity? And why make things more complicated than they need to be? We dont even have to change any minesweeper clons, we could just subtract one from the time we get from one of the old clones. Is that so hard? And speaking of banning winmine, I think its neccesary. does the recorder detect xyzzy+shift+enter? If not, I dont understand why winmine wasn't banned ages ago. Just imagine that you do that every time you start a session. you play normally, and when you hit a 50:50, you take a quick look at the top left corner of the screen. AFAIK from damien, lasse LCed a 39 once. now hypothetically, had he been cheating, (and I dont wnat to accuse him of doing so, its the fact that it would have been possible that matters), he could have taken a quick look at the top left corner of the screen and clicked on the right square. Probably it would have been a 40, possibly still a 39, certainly still a record. And the fact that doing sth like that is possible makes it, IMO, obvious that winmine shouldnt be legal. I am not thinking about removing any winmine scores from the ranking, in case anybody is worried about that, I just think winmine is too much of a liability to be still in use. WP: If you play a game that takes exactly x.0 seconds, the integer time by your definition is x (it takes you x seconds to finish) but as winmine does it, your time is x+1 (add 1 to realtime). Thats what I meant below... Reforms happen everywhere. Usually things like that stay in place only to allow for backwards-compatibility, but who needs backwards-compatibility on this issue? |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 07:09:44 AM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
The future of the IMC: debating the timer. Tomorrow the site will pass 700,000 visitors (not views). I fixed the country rankings, so the first page doesn't ignore your selection...now it immediately displays the country you choose, and it only lists countries that have players. |
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 05:35:32 AM |
|
Name: |
AreOut |
Comments: |
Sounds easy eh?! ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 05:23:31 AM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
"Who is stupid to understand that shouldnt be allowed to participate in community anyway" Haha, I think we should have a GCAT, General Community Admission Test. Before you enter the IMC site you have to answer the follwing question: If game is finished in 12.458... how many milliseconds /hundredths/tenths/seconds did it take to? ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 04:08:07 AM |
|
Name: |
WP |
Comments: |
Yes, thank you, Joni, my surname comes before my given name! And thanks to Schu as well for the nomination ![]() ![]() And of course I agree with AreOut; we’ve been through that before (I wanna nominate him, can’t I? Can’t I? ) |
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 03:35:14 AM |
|
Name: |
Banzhaf |
Best expert: |
70 |
Best intermediate: |
21 |
Best beginner: |
2 |
Comments: |
means BE only planet minesweeper or does an entry in this site's world ranking authorise to vote, too? (don't search them, they still have to be updated, but you see my times^^) |
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 02:53:00 AM |
|
Name: |
AreOut |
Comments: |
Option 4 - follow original winmine and count needed seconds, tenths, hundredths milliseconds etc. If game is finished in 12.458... seconds you needed 12459 milliseconds 1246 hundredths 125 tenths 13 seconds and thats it. Who is stupid to understand that shouldnt be allowed to participate in community anyway ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 28th 2006 at 12:35:22 AM |
|
Name: |
Schu (Andrew McCauley) |
Comments: |
****, the second time I've gotten a name wrong on the GB recently... sorry Yeoh Wee Pin ![]() Anyway, nominating what I thought was you does no harm, if people don't think you're well known enough in the community, they just won't vote you in. |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 11:38:13 PM |
|
Name: |
joni |
Comments: |
oh it looks like I'm really late with that one, I hadn't read WP's post as I posted that, I went slowly through the other posts while doing other stuff and i think I was using the back and forward browser buttons so it didn't refresh the page. Since she |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 11:29:47 PM |
|
Name: |
joni |
Best expert: |
61x3 |
Comments: |
had a hard time keeping up with all the posts that have flooded the guestbook in just one day ![]() ![]() I think I'll do everyone a favor and nominate Robert Farnik (Nikolaj) and Yeoh Wee Pin (you like your surname in front if I remember correctly ![]() I'm too tired to make any other comments, and I think it's going to be difficult to choose the ones I'm going to vote for with all these (deserving) people nominated, it's surprising to see some of you guys have very clear ideas already |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 10:36:39 PM |
|
Name: |
WP |
Comments: |
Thomas said: [Also, your definition is correct exept for true integer scores. In your definition, a game that takes exactly 1 second would have to be a 1 as you needed 1 second to finish. if 1 second is added, however, the 1 is turned into a 2. And I think that decimals in rankings make sense, as on a high level these decimals can make all the difference.] The 1 would be turned into a 2 since the game doesn't start immediately when we press down the first click ;) The decimals shouldn't make a difference...'cos if they do we'll keep on adding them! As long as what would be 1, 2 or whatever on Winmine stays that way in the bestver (and I mean INTEGER scores), I don't really mind about the decimal time being realtime or realtime+1. There is no realtime anyway, since precision is all it takes ;) So when you look at Schu's 3 options, what I mentioned above means that I could accept the 1st or the 2nd, but I am definitely against the 3rd. Actually I doubt anyone would be confused about the Minesweeper scoring system...anyway no one has answered my question: when did you get confused anyway? I never did. Schu: It's nice to nominate Wee Pee Yeoh, but who's that? :P (grr...it's an atrocity...you do that one more time and I'll, uh...I can't think of a bad enough thing to do :P) I would love to be in the IMC if it would help shoot down the timer change idea! :P But I must say that I might not be involved enough in the community for that...who knows me? ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 07:57:01 PM |
|
Name: |
Daniel Brim |
Comments: |
I favor 3 as well. 2 is just confusing as hell. 1 works, but it's pretty unnecessary in my opinion. |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 06:21:58 PM |
|
Name: |
Schu (Andrew McCauley) |
Comments: |
I think you misunderstood DB, I was just explaining that winmine does not start on 1, not advocating that particular timer jump (though I consider it a possible option). I definitely don't like adding 1 second to a time that is counted in milliseconds, so if we use decimal rankings, I definitely want the +1 to go.in that case, I don't like the idea of having a 12.586 mean a 13 in integer time, it just looks messy and is likely to lead to more confusion. I can see a few options: 1- don't change anything 2- make decimal time remove the +1 but keep integer value the same (rounded up) 3- make both integer time and decimal time remove the extra one second (integer times rounded down. 1 has the advantage of not needing any change, but has the disadvantage of having a precise time of 13.345 really meaning 13.345 minus one, and needing such modification for things like 3BV/s. 2 has the advantage of being the same for integer scores, which means less change. It has the disadvantage of having to either contend with the confusion of having a 13.xxx being a 14 in integer time, or needing to ignore decimal time for rankings entirely. 3 needs the most change, and has the disadvantage of 0 second integer values for gome games, meaning either that needs to be qualified/justified on the rankings page, or just decimal times be used for rankings, meaning that there are no 0.000 times. The advantages are that it will make more sense, and I doubt it will confuse people so long as it is explained somewhere. I'm hoping people will just say "oh, winmine adds a second? Well that's silly, I'm glad this clone doesn't add that superfluous second". 3 is the option I'd prefer. It's more work, but when I think of the future, I think if we choose 3, we'll look back on this and wonder what the big deal was, if we choose 2 we'll always be annoyed by having integer and decimal times being different, and if we choose 1, this issue will crop up every now and then to annoy us, until we do change it. I can't see us choosing 3 and having the same kind of worries: I doubt anyone will try to get the extra 1 second added back on just to keep perfectly congruent with winmine, a program with myriad bugs, exploits and aberrent clicking behaviour. [/rant] |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 05:35:04 PM |
|
Name: |
Daniel Brim |
Comments: |
@Schu: Well, to be honest, the timer starting at 0 and jumping to 1 immediately on the first click is more nitpicky than anything. If you want it to start at 0 and stay there for a full second, that's another matter entirely. Personally, I'm for that, but like I said earlier, that would be an adjustment for new people joining the community. If we do that, I'd rather see a 12.335 or whatever real time be counted as a 12, and to not change that system at all, else the whole thing would be pointless ;) I do agree that those such as Kat should be involved in the process as well. |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 04:43:38 PM |
|
Name: |
Schu |
Comments: |
aw, my smilies disappeared after the preview ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 04:41:29 PM |
|
Name: |
Schu (Andrew McCauley) |
Comments: |
well as regards the timer+1 thing, I do intend to do what I can to change it, sorry WP. Unless I hear a good enough reason not to or a vote is made about it, I will keep trying to change it. Last time we had this discussion, it ended not because of any agreement but because no-one did anything about it, so I think at least the dialogue should be open again. Arguing that games shouldn't have 0 times is irrelevant, since 1 3BV games are no longer allowed (and old ones have to be judged by Damiens timer penalties) meaning no game will have a 0.000 time as far as I know except for old clone times, and these should perhaps be given some thought. I don't think keeping it similar to winmine is a good enough reason. Neither do I think "it's less work" is a good enough reason DB: all winmine timers start at 0 actually as far as I know. They instantly jump to 1. I don't want a real time of 12.396 to be recorded as a 13.396. As for whether the integer time should be 13 or 12, I'm still undecided really. Can we make special exceptions for people like Kat (and previously people like Rilian and Twitch) who are part of the community but just missing out on sub-100? Kat is far more regularly here than hundreds of people on the BE, and knows the issues we have better than most of them too. Maybe people over 100 total can apply to the current IMC for voting status? I very much agree with what Gergely says about registering the IMC. I think the losses through registering are minimal (even abstract) and the gains for the game of minesweeper are potentially enormous. I agree with what WP said about not making it too complicated. We don't need a rigidly defined set of responsibilities for the IMC, it needs goals, and it needs to work towards them, and it needs to recognise issues as they come up, and deal with them. The last thing I'd want to see is for the IMC to be bound up in bureaucracy. I won't say who I support yet because there are too many of you and I have to start narrowing it down! I would like to nominate Wee Pee Yeoh though, it is good to have opposing viewpoints and even better to have someone who argues them well |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 03:04:30 PM |
|
Name: |
Kat |
Comments: |
If candidates must be on BE, do nominators and voters have to be to? |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 02:39:51 PM |
|
Name: |
Daniel Brim |
Comments: |
Well, that may be one way to get McGinley to unretire ![]() What I think it comes down to is whether or not the people coming over from winmine would be able to make that adjustment. I made the switch to clone rather early in my career, so I don't know really how hard the adjustment is. Also, I heard somewhere that the vistamine timer starts at 0... is that correct? |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 02:36:41 PM |
|
Name: |
Thomas |
Comments: |
Well, the game starts when the LMB is first released, and it ends when the LMB is released over the last square in the game (Not counting chording). Point is, if you open the only 3bv of a 1 3bv beginner board, the release that triggers the 3bv opening is identical to the click that ends the game. So, even though the computer takes time to process the event itself and end the game, technically, the game is over exactly when it starts, and therefore, it's a 0 second game, even if the timer displays something else. Yes, it is work, but IMO a neglectable amount of work. Also, your definition is correct exept for true integer scores. In your definition, a game that takes exactly 1 second would have to be a 1 as you needed 1 second to finish. if 1 second is added, however, the 1 is turned into a 2. And I think that decimals in rankings make sense, as on a high level these decimals can make all the difference. Whatever, I remember discussing this on the GB already a couple of months ago, we had a couple of interesting discussions going on about pretty much the same topic. I have to go to bed now, I'm looking forward to continuing the discussion tomorrow morning though ;) VC=M747 |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 02:35:40 PM |
|
Name: |
Jake |
Comments: |
while we're at it, we should remove expert. Nobody ever plays expert. I would be in favour of a "grand drop by one second of everything"... decimals would be a bit harder to manage because of the old Winminers, so we can go without that, but the desorinification would be a good idea. |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 02:16:40 PM |
|
Name: |
Daniel Brim |
Comments: |
You could always remove beginner from BE ![]() Actually though, I think a BE change over to decimal totals or even a weighted system like nonosweeper has would be interesting, but there's a lot of winmine players in there, and I honestly don't know what would happen with those. |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 02:14:55 PM |
|
Name: |
WP |
Comments: |
I see a point in not converting: it’s less work ![]() One way to beat realtime etc is to NEVER use decimals in rankings. Therefore rankings should say explicitly that the times are “the number of seconds needed to finish” And since the number of seconds is an integer, everything is nice and logical. And even 1 3bv games can’t be finished in 0 seconds. I’ve said it before and I say it again: it still takes time to press and release that click. It might be 0.00000000000000001 seconds, but “the number of seconds needed to finish” would still be 1! And Gergely: yeah, I see your point about registering...(not sure I agree though...yet ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 01:58:32 PM |
|
Name: |
Thomas |
Comments: |
Well, the timer does not show the time taken to finish the game, as most people would expect it to. And I would rather say that the beg WR is 0.1 instead of 1.1... I guess starting the timer at 1 makes sense if youre working with integer times only. In our community, though, we have tenths, hundredths, and, in the clone 2006, even thousandths. And yes, it isnt possible to finish a board in 0 seconds (exept for boards with a 3bv of 1), but it is possible to finish a board in a time with a 0 as the first digit. People ask me about the world records at school sometimes, and then I open the BE or the world rankings here, and then I'd like to say "0.1 seconds" for beginner rather than "1 second, but actually less because the timer starts at 1". this is where the rankings get confusing. Also, if I wouldnt know about the timer start at 1 rule, to me a record of 1 second would seem beatable, as it is also possible to get a time below one second. In short, it isnt clear that the wr is already the best integer time acchievable on beginner. And while newbs might find out about the realtime+1 rule on their own, if someone who doesnt play finds the rankings he will probably think that the time displayed is realtime. When I said that I wanted to make the IMC more accessible, I meant to everyone. And while you dont see a point in converting I dont see one in not to, especially as winmine will probably go a different path from vista onwards. Yes, I am pretty new, but that doesn't mean that I'm inexpierienced. I dont believe the timer to be wrong, but inaccurate and not an exact representant of the time taken (there is a reason 3bvs/s is calculated using realtime and not realtime+1). Yes, the effect is often neglectable, but its there, and I see no reason to keep it there. If anyone here wonders how someone can discuss this topic in that depth - so do I. I'm pretty surprised of myself :D |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 01:54:45 PM |
|
Name: |
Gergely |
Comments: |
While I agree with WP on the timer thing, I think registering the IMC will only do good for the community. It's not like the rules of minesweeper are so strict you have to follow them all the time. Like in any kind of sportfor example athletics: you have rules to help performances to be comparable - while you don't have to run 100/200/400 metres; you can run 123/289/402 metres if you want, just for fun ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 01:29:23 PM |
|
Name: |
WP |
Comments: |
0 certainly does not speak for itself! No one can finish a board in 0 seconds, period! And what is a sub-100 total anyway? It’s just a “level” that we use because it looks nice! If you want to change to real times, you’ve have to aim for a sub-97! To me, this argument is simply not valid. I get the impression that it is the community that corrupts the minds of newbies, making them believe that the timer is wrong.(and in that case, you might be one of the victims, Thomas, since you're fairly new :P) It is not wrong!!! (whatever, I think I’m wasting my time) |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 01:08:19 PM |
|
Name: |
Thomas |
Comments: |
Yeah, you're right, governing body is the wrong word. Even though you could say that it governs the rankings. But governing body really isn't the right term. I'd say it's more or less the management and jury combined ;) Anyway, the IMC would never be able to govern minesweeper players worldwide. Anyone can make a ranking, the question is which ranking provides the most complete list. and to be in the IMC ranking or an IMC-endorsed ranking, you have to fulfill the terms of the IMC. Thats how I would define the IMC ;) As to the timer thing - I would be pretty upset if I got a sub100 total realtime, and I knew it, and my ranking total was 102 because someone decided to add 1 to all scores sometime in the past. I dont see having 0 as a beg WR as a problem, as currently I have to explain that the timer starts at 1 when telling someone what the beginner wr is, while a 0 kinda speaks for itself :D |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 01:05:37 PM |
|
Name: |
Christoph |
Comments: |
Even if they are ready nominated, I suggest: Damien, Elmar, Roman, Schu, Tommy and Rodrigo (beside myself). concerning the website: The IMC has a website, I reserved the domain more than two months ago (and paid it for two years). Only - it's still a bit empty. It is supposed to start it's duty with the new IMC period. |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 12:44:39 PM |
|
Name: |
WP |
Comments: |
“...I think is a bit of an advanced level to know about your actual governing body.” I don’t think one should see the IMC as a governing body...I certainly don’t want to feel “bound legally” when I play minesweeper (lol). And one of the reasons why the IMC shouldn’t be made “official” is because it would then “govern” the whole world’s minesweeper players, and that wouldn’t be really fair, since a lot of them aren’t even in the community. To me, the rules imposed by the IMC are only for this community and for those who wish to belong to it. Therefore it should be inofficial. All of us are here voluntarily, because we like playing minesweeper and we like belonging to a community of minesweeper players. New players who come and don’t like the organisation can just leave. (I’m just stating it as a fact, not addressing it to new players! lol) About the time: I doubt whether newbies would care that there is a second added to their integer time...I say stick with it...we’ve lived with it for so long and it’s not a bother! It’s just to avoid having a time of 0 seconds! Anyone who wants to change the timing system had better say it now, I’m not gonna vote for you! (lol okay, I’m not sure yet...I might end up voting for no one :P) And I doubt that newbies care about all the stats we have...one has to first play the game, and discover the others slowly! So they won't find anything wrong with the timer starting from 1! (at least I think so...seriously, when did you all start being "confused" about the timer anyway?) Thomas: there’s also par ;) (I used to play a lot of these “making words out of letters in a word” games :P) |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 12:14:15 PM |
|
Name: |
Thomas |
Comments: |
I agree with DB. I like the idea to register the IMC because it makes it more formal and, last but not least, because of what gergely just posted. Also, I would like information about the IMC to be more clearly available, I didnt know what the IMC was or what it did until christoph told me shortly before the tournament (as far as I can recall), I know that my expert record was 60 at the time, which I think is a bit of an advanced level to know about your actual governing body. All minesweeper community sites should contain a link to the official IMC homepage. What I said, however, does not mean that I want the IMC to become a bureaucratic mess, contrarily, I would like it to have a clear and accessible structure. I also do not want it to make minesweeper more complicated, just make the rules clear to everyone ;) And I dont see the IMCs task as imposing rules; rather, I see the IMC as the body that recognizes the rules that the community wants and gives them authority by formalising them. Of course, the IMC has to decide what to do in critical situations. I agree with schu on the stardardization issue, as I believe that it is unfair if different clones have different properties. Also, the time=realtime+1 thing is confusing for newbies. I am for making winmine illegal, as it is too easy to cheat on winmine (I dont want to take any records out of the ranking, just make sure that nobody uses winmine to set new records.). I think that minesweeper should always remain loyal to winmine in matters of gameplay. However, the interface is, to me, a completely different story. Clones nowadays have counters windows and extended preferences, they even change the appearance of things that are included in winmine already such as the timer or the appearance of the board (for example, arbiter has an option not to fill completed boards with flags (I don't know about the clone)). To me, changing the timer interface to something more logical is only the next step. In case anyone objects, what difference would this kind of transformation make in terms of gameplay? And I guess that anyone can get used to a timer starting at 0 in a matter of weeks if not days. And yes, it's confusing at first, but IMO it's better to confuse a couple of pros for a couple of days than to confuse every newbie to enter the community forever. Seriously, where is the problem with seeing a 0 instead of a 1? OK, I know this is getting kinda political, but as I'm nominated, I guess its probably a good idea to tell you what I think and what changes I'd like to make. The IMC is supposed to represent what the community wants ;) And standardised tounaments dont have to mean that all tounaments are played that way. All that would happen is that you could talk of playing a tournament and mean the standard rules without having to explain them. That wouldnt mean that you wouldnt be able to play a tournament if it didnt comply with IMC standards, and neither would such a tournament be less endorsed by the IMC, as far as I understand it, it just provides terminology ;) Granted, if there were tournament standards, they would be the ones most commonly used, but that would also make it easier to compare tournament results. Wow. I dont think I ever posted something this long here, thanks for reading :P Grats Rogen!!! and finally: VC=PRAP Not a word in itself, I can only think of RAP when using only these letters, but add one more and you get a lot :D |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 11:36:31 AM |
|
Name: |
Gergely |
Comments: |
I thank Elmar for nominating me, and as it's only the nomination period, and most people already got nominated, I will only vote from now on ![]() ![]() ![]() Btw, here's two, or even three questions/arguments: 1) what are the current rights and responsibilities of a member of IMC? It is an organisation here and should have concrete goals and means to achieve them, even though it's not registered. And that leads to: 2) I do consider that (i.e not being a registered organisation) as a problem as I negotiate with sponsors-to-be. They would require a paper from me and I can't give them any. 3) So that these local-then-continentwide-then-worldwide tourneys are harder to achieve because it needs to have publicity, which is also hard enough to achieve through no-budget organisation. (not to mention prizes) Thank you for your patience, and don't forget to prepare for the tournament! ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 10:58:27 AM |
|
Name: |
Daniel Brim |
Comments: |
![]() Forgot about Elmar. He's been around a lot recently, and he was one of two that were really around during the whole 3bv limits thing in chat when everybody was on each other's case ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 10:48:47 AM |
|
Name: |
Daniel Brim |
Comments: |
For the record, I agree with most of what WP said. Also, some constructive feedback from last IMC session. I would have to say that the biggest issue with the IMC for the past year or so was the lack of availability and clarity. They were in the dark most of the time (nobody knew exactly WHAT they were doing) and not often were members available in chat. The one that was in chat most often was probably Dan, and he just didn't care. After that was trouser and rogen, then Damien more recently. The other members were sparsely seen, if at all. |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 10:42:20 AM |
|
Name: |
Rogen |
Comments: |
YAY! I got 3BV/s 4 NF!!! |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 10:16:25 AM |
|
Name: |
WP |
Comments: |
I think the IMC shouldn’t be registered...that would make it too formal. It would be nice to have recognition for this game, but I don’t think it’s necessary to be registered to do that. I don’t think the IMC should “improve” Minesweeper, as Schu suggests. Minesweeper is a great game, and too many changes/restrictions will spoil the fun. What should be done is just to check records to filter cheats, and try to establish a solution acceptable to the majority of the community when a new controversial idea comes up. An official website would be a very very good idea, since, as I have mentioned before, I couldn’t even remember who all the members were :P So there should be one with all the basic info (and I make a motion that if this is not done by 31 Dec 2007, all of us should kick out ALL the IMC members and choose new ones!!!) I don’t think the IMC should be too complicated, or have too many responsibilities. These people are elected because they are trusted (at least, I hope so! lol) to make decisions for our community. Remember that they are also, at the same time, volunteers to do that! So let’s not list out all the tasks they have to do! Everyone can pitch in to make the community a better place (now I sound like an environmentalist...let’s go green, etc lol, so I'll stop here) Oh yeah, and I support Thomas’ idea of an online minesweeper magazine. ;) |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 09:23:30 AM |
|
Name: |
AreOut |
Comments: |
Poor Arj always gets pawned ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 08:23:09 AM |
|
Name: |
Jake |
Comments: |
what, pray tell, would the IMC need to do that required legal age? Make pornographic skins?? |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 08:18:31 AM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
yes, I got that right and I dont think it's a problem. The IMC could elect a board that represents the IMC towards the outside. Simple membership doesnt require being over 18. |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 08:04:14 AM |
|
Name: |
Thomas |
Comments: |
@Schu: glad to hear ;) @Elmar:I didnt mean that I dont want someone underage, I meant that if it was a legal problem to include someone underage because a member of the organisation would have to do things underage people arent allowed to do, I wouldnt want the IMC to be registered. (In case you didnt get that right). |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 08:03:23 AM |
|
Name: |
Jake |
Comments: |
Rogen, Mlar, Christoph, Shoe, and for his tireless participation in the chat, Martin :P U8MQ: Hey, I did no such thing! |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 07:53:36 AM |
|
Name: |
Rilian |
Comments: |
i vote for Elmar Nikolaj Damien Christoph Rogen Shoo and DB EHBB :o |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 07:36:57 AM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
I denominate Schu for not following my advice and spamming the GB instead of starting a proper thread on the forum. ![]() I also dont think being under age is a problem. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 07:28:54 AM |
|
Name: |
Schu (Andrew McCauley) |
Comments: |
OK. The list of what I think the IMC should stand for is perhaps a long one, let's see how I go: -improvement of the game of minesweeper this includes issues I've raised before, like fixing (one way or another) the +1 in time+1, making skins (or at least different colours for the existing skins) legal, making clone and arbiter consistent with each other and the intentions of winmine (especially as regards click behaviour, and despite winmines bugginess). This also includes making the game more competitive by organising tournaments. The european variety has been admirably done as far as I know, but I'd like the possibility of regular multimine tournaments (when a working version is available) and possibly something like that on minesweeperlive too, and this could be promoted by the IMC I think. -Exposure/publicity Anything we can do to get a bit of exposure to the game. My youtube channel for example, which has over 1000 views, and the videos have over 50,000. I also thought that it would be interesting to try to get clone into the CDs/DVDs that come with computer magazines and usually are stuffed with shareware and freeware. Getting on to the guinness book of records would also be nice, for which I have taken the first steps. -Records maintenence Same as I imagine it has been- each record in the BE is checked, and the bigger the claim, the more scrutiny. I would like to see more consistency between the 2 record lists though, both in terms of which scoring system is used (integer vs decimal) and hopefully having all players in both lists. Maybe even have an official IMC scorelist. One thing I'd like to see happen is for the IMC to have to approve a new minesweeper program before it is allowed for records, including checking for things like arbiters UPK bug and incorrect click behaviour. -website Some sort of official minesweeper website would be nice I think, with a minimum of a set of rules, the world records/world champion, and hopefully some form of constitution as well. To improve on the minimum, there could be a scorelist (top ten, top 100, or even have the best-ever there), a good official FAQ (explaining things like chording, why winmine isn't acceptable etc.) and links to approved sites. I think that's about it... Dammit Thomas, stop thinking of my ideas! Glad you think the same way ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 07:26:24 AM |
|
Name: |
Thomas |
Comments: |
Thaks elmar! I renominate you in return ;) |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 07:24:33 AM |
|
Name: |
Thomas |
Comments: |
Oh yeah, I forgot: I think it would be extremely cool if a couple of countries established a local administration with local tournaments, local rankings, and so on. Also, I think that a championship for every continent would be great so players wouldnt have to travel so far to meet other players from other countries. Online tounaments would be extremely cool as well, perhaps a clone could be modified so that it can be given a password and encrypts its vids with that password so that we can be sure that nobody cheats during the tournament. For example, a tournament is supposed to last from 14:00 to 16:00. The clone using the special pw is downloadable 1 minute prior to the tournament start to allow for dl, and the pw is made public when the tournament starts. histories can be submitted at any time before the tournament deadline, and at 16:00 the results are evaluated and turned into a HTML page or the world to see. Of course, my system is not absolutely cheat-proof yet, feel free to improve it ;) |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 07:23:58 AM |
|
Name: |
Nikolaj |
Comments: |
@Tommy: I was making such compilation of interesting nono/minesweeper moments when Gero Wälz was in the barracks (compulsory military service) since October 2005 and for example in nonosweeper there wasn´t possibility to find out scores between Sunday and Thursday. I called it "Sweeper weekly" and whenever I got any record, it had attachment ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 07:20:00 AM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
I nominate Thomas. Ha that's what you get for making James C.ian posts! ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 07:11:08 AM |
|
Name: |
Thomas |
Comments: |
I would like to support everyone listed here already if possible, if not, I support Christoph ;) But as you're all nominated already I guess its unimportant anyway ;) I think its a good idea, but I see one problem with registering the IMC as an official organisation: Are underage people allowed to make descisions regarding the organisation? Arj is underage and he's nominated... If not, I'd say its better to have the IMC unregistered. I would like the community to become more official and more serious. That is, I would like to have an official website and official minesweeper rules, listed on one HTML page. What would really rock would be an online minesweeper magazine, as well as a more general community. The way it is now, everyone posts on the GB and enters the community by getting to know people here or in #minesweeper. I would like an official international minesweeper community internet site (minesweeper.net?) where you can officially register and enter your scores (which are checked by an IMC member before they are accepted). The IMC homepage could be integrated into the official minesweeper homepage, which could be maintained by the IMC. I want to learn HTML and CGI/Python programming, so I could help program the website ;) With every player and his highscores registered, it would be possible to gather data about the players and incorprate it into the magazine, for example it would be possible to list all new players together with their highscores, and also list the players that got highscores since the last edition of the mag was published. Something that would definetly be motivating players to sweep on... |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 06:28:25 AM |
|
Name: |
Schu (Andrew McCauley) |
Comments: |
I nominate Damien, since I don't think self-nomination should be allowed ![]() Should I say what I want the IMC to do now or wait for the list of candidates to be put up? |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 05:26:42 AM |
|
Name: |
Banzhaf |
Comments: |
since all popular high-score lists follow the actual IMC's rules the IMC should definitely go on with enhancing these rules (e.g. regarding the custom skin question ;-.) I personally like the idea of IMC as registered organsiation, just because it makes the whole MS thing becoming more respectable (well, we have after all a microsoft-sponsored tournament ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 04:54:20 AM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
When a list of candidates is made, it would be nice if each person said what they believe the future of the IMC should be. Opinions will influence my votes: I have two different choices that depend on the direction the community chooses ![]() With the exception of Dan and Gregoire, all the other members of the IMC have stated they would like to stand for re-election. For those who do not know, this includes: Rodrigo Camargo, Elmar Zimmermann, Roman Gammel, Christoph Marx (and myself!). I would like to have their names nominated, as no one has done so yet. Should the IMC only check world records? choose clones? make rules? become the official body for the community? register as an organisation? control tournaments and sponsorship? run a website? play poker? |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 03:56:12 AM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
oh and, trutru, I will really miss owning you on AR! ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 03:55:05 AM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
I nominate Gergely and Christoph, the persons who possibly have the highest motivation for the job. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Nov 27th 2006 at 12:36:06 AM |
|
Name: |
Schu (Andrew McCauley) |
Comments: |
@ DB: cheers man! Much appreciated. @ IMC: Thanks to all of you for the great job over your period of governance. Especially Gregoire and Dan, we'll all miss you. I'd like to reciprocate Daniel Brims gesture, not just for the sake of reciprocating but because he'd be an excellent choice. So I nominate him. Even though he's already nominated, I support Arjadre's nomination. With a proviso: even though most people heavily involved in the community probably know his name by now, he should probably make that more public if he were to accept an IMC position. |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
Viewing Page 4 of 53 (Total Entries: 5262) |