n00bz - n00b 14 needed

[Scurra]

| wrote a long PM to Cenwulf a day or so ago covering almost all of these points (since I'd come across them myself.)
I think we need formal clarification of exactly how the scoring is going to work here.

[gill216]

Maybe I'm looking at this puzzle from the wrong direction but my feeling is that the element of chance is important.

[Bunnylump]

That's what I'm RELYING on!

[kathlyn]

You're not the only one

[gill216]

I'm just glad that my worst score can only be zero!!!!

[evilkeen]

Interesting.

My first thought was there won't be many possible answers, but having started to enumerate them it looks as though could be as many as 50,000. OK, that's rather less than the 30 million odd if there were no restriction on placing, but it is certainly the case that a solution that fits the criteria could easily score -22. (Incidentally, if you had the 'correct' solution but in reverse order you would score -18, because the middle one would still be in the right place).

On the other hand an answer which did not fit the criteria at all could easily get a relatively good score. The more I look at it, the more I conclude that this is very much a round of chance and luck (with some psychological stategy) like the others, rather than one of more certainty that I thought it was at first.

I think we need formal clarification of exactly how the scoring is going to work here.

Actually I think the rules have been stated very clearly, but I just think the criteria as stated have much less relevance in getting a good score than it might appear at first sight.

[Bunnylump]

Hence the usual random "bit of a guess" strategy which I have used. You lot think too deeply for your own good. I try not to think at all. Ask Scurra.

[Scurra]

No, there is absolutely zero psychological strategy involved here. The score has nothing to do with any answer that any other player submits (unlike in other rounds.) I don't have any problems with this in principle, but I do with the idea there could be a potential swing of 40 points between two players, one of whom submits the "right" sequence and the other who submits the reverse sequence.

I think there's something wrong with a round in which not submitting an answer at all (and thus scoring zero) is a better strategy than submitting any other answer and hoping for the best. That's just a lottery. Even Deal or No Deal has a positive outcome at the end of the game!

[LAT]

Actually I think the rules have been stated very clearly, but I just think the criteria as stated have much less relevance in getting a good score than it might appear at first sight.

I agree, it is after all just a game

And since my score seems to be going backwards at the moment I shall just attempt to find one of the 50000 plus possibilities and hope.

[evilkeen]

No, there is absolutely zero psychological strategy involved here. The score has nothing to do with any answer that any other player submits (unlike in other rounds.)

Yes, very true, I just meant a little psychological strategy in terms of what 'Issachar' reports as the definitive list!

I think there's something wrong with a round in which not submitting an answer at all (and thus scoring zero) is a better strategy than submitting any other answer and hoping for the best.

But it could be argued that no submission = no correct placings, therefore scoring 11 x -2 = -22 - except for Looby of course, whose absence is authorised (as we'd say in school! )

[Scurra]

Well that's partly why I said that we needed clarity on the scoring - both for "no" submission" and for an "invalid" submission. And I think the swing issue is quite significant.

LAT, it comes back to definitions again. I don't consider Bingo to be a game since (unless you are playing some unusual variant), the winner is predetermined before the game begins; there is no room for strategy or tactics. You could have the same card as the winner but for one difference, and you can't win. This round feels like that, only worse, because your different card is actually being penalised without you knowing ahead of time that it would be.

And I have no particular objection to a game in which players can just guess and hope for the best. But do you see why I think there's a fundamental problem if those players have an equal chance with players who spend time actually working out that there are a large number of valid possibilities with no way of distinguishing between them? (I stopped looking for answers when I found three perfectly good lists, not one of which had a brother in the same place - and in most cases not even next to the same brother!) In the "goats" game, there was at least some space for creativity - I entered "Atlantis" as a "country beginning with A"...

[gill216]

Scurra , stop bleating and send in an answer!!!

If you like, think of it like the time machine that makes all things OK even if they are wrong. You know what I mean .
It's for fun and you never know, you may have the winning card It's no different to any other round really. It's a guessy game.

Off soapbox.

[evilkeen]

Nothing wrong with a good discussion about these things!

[Bunnylump]

Whatever floats your boat. We obviously have both "serious academics" who need to know exactly how things work and random guessers here. It's the mix that makes it all work.

[Laura]

We obviously have both "serious academics" who need to know exactly how things work and random guessers here.

And some inbetweeners, who would love to know how it all works, but don't quite know how to get there.

[gill216]

I think the majority of us are the in betweenies

[Cenwulf]

I think we need formal clarification of exactly how the scoring is going to work here.

Actually I think the rules have been stated very clearly, but I just think the criteria as stated have much less relevance in getting a good score than it might appear at first sight.

The criteria stated are mainly to reduce the possible permutations. When you consider that there are nearly 40,000,000 ways of arranging 12 people round a table, there had to be some way of eliminating some of the possibilities.
And the alphabetical order is linear, not circular - it is possible that Asher (1st alphabetically) might be next to Zebulun (12th)

I have adjusted the scoring, and getting someone in the right place now scores 3 points. Getting someone in the wrong place now depends on how wrong the place is. For example, if you have Judah in seventh place but he was actually sixth or eighth, you would get one point. But if he was fifth or ninth you score nothing, and if he was even further away you would lose one point.

[fernando]

Sounds confusing but probably works a bit fairer.

[kathlyn]

I probably score nil points then

[Bunnylump]

Look. If anyone loses squintillions of points, and it really upsets them, I'll gladly swap scores with them. I'm good at losing games! (And actually, as the official Ambrosian President I insist.)