Can't find the old WU thread, so I'll just make a new one

Ernest W. Quality · Post by **Ernest W. Quality** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:15 pm

NATURALIZATIONS 525
MISERABLENESSES 390

2353
2127

VB + EWQ, Walkabout, Charing Cross Rd

cool · Post by **cool** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:42 pm

anybody know who this is? Found widespread high scores on word games throughout the south/south east of england DEXTROUS who appears to be pretty handy but not as handy as the guy with vaginal bob.

roberto la vigna · Post by **roberto la vigna** » Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:14 pm

cool wrote:anybody know who this is? Found widespread high scores on word games throughout the south/south east of england DEXTROUS who appears to be pretty handy but not as handy as the guy with vaginal bob.

No idea - haven't spotted the name, either. Got any more details (where found? How high are the scores)?

cool · Post by **cool** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:19 am

contacted my contact who said dextrous monopolises word game high scores in West Sussex / Portsmouth without elaborating. I will be investigating over the next few weeks.

fotherz · Post by **fotherz** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:40 am

Never saw him when I used to play in Horsham.

roberto la vigna · Post by **roberto la vigna** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:03 pm

cool wrote:contacted my contact who said dextrous monopolises word game high scores in West Sussex / Portsmouth without elaborating. I will be investigating over the next few weeks.

Cheers, cool, this might call for an away day.

jonesey · Post by **jonesey** » Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:53 pm

Had a couple of WU sessions round Portsmouth (and a couple of places in W Sussex too) in last year and can't remember seeing any impressive scores from DEXTROUS or anyone else. The only name I've recognised on my bit of the south coast is NILS SATIS, who topped the board at a Varsity in Southampton until I replaced him - though an appallingly misaligned screen means that those who follow will think we are both incapable of breaking 1,000 consistently.

Nil Satis · Post by **Nil Satis** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:18 pm

How dare you! I wouldn't dream of putting my name to such a lowly score...

I did however get a particularly low high score the other day - something like 1370 including the 500 clearance bonus. Has anyone ever done worse that that on a clearance?!

Istenem · Post by **Istenem** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:24 pm

this is one record i hold: 1190 for the lowest perfect game*

also 1409 which is the highest perfect game afaiaa.

* 39x three-letter word

Nil Satis · Post by **Nil Satis** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:47 pm

Ah yes, but the difference is that I wasn't deliberately trying to get a low score...

dmac · Post by **dmac** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:51 pm

jonesey · Post by **jonesey** » Fri May 02, 2008 7:57 pm

Pushed my PB up to 2105 (in the Bugle, Titchfield) on Wed - of various decent words, got EXQUISITELY tonight (400 and something). I do find it vaguely interesting that when I beat my PB it's not due to one of the headline words (Quizz****, etc) - also, without any formal analysis, it does seem that scores on a particular version of Word Up/Word Soup vary more than my scores on Puzzle Word - which suggests to me (and apols to anyone who thought this was incredibly obvious from start) that difficulty (i.e. difficulty set by machine) of WU is not controlled just by the scores needed to win but also by things such as letter mix (or proximity of particular letter pairs ?) which might be varied in accordance with the amount of cash wanted to pay out. Am I stupid to even raise this ?

roberto la vigna · Post by **roberto la vigna** » Fri May 02, 2008 8:39 pm

jonesey wrote:Pushed my PB up to 2105 (in the Bugle, Titchfield)

Nice one, Jonesey!

Nil Satis · Post by **Nil Satis** » Tue May 06, 2008 11:46 am

jonesey wrote:... but also by things such as letter mix (or proximity of particular letter pairs ?) which might be varied in accordance with the amount of cash wanted to pay out. Am I stupid to even raise this ?

Not stupid at all. I don't think the issue of how the game decides on the initial grid has ever been raised in all the Word Up discussions on here. My own view is that the initial letter distribution is random and that the game instead varies the points targets to control payout, most obviously via the the initial £1 target and also then the gaps to the subsequent prizes. I play the game at a similarly mediocre level every time and am able to clear sometimes but equally on other games I can be left with 25-30 consonants and no vowels. Whilst this could be the game providing an impossible initial grid to deter even an expert player like me

I have always taken it to mean that the letter distribution, both in terms of numbers of vowels and consonants and in the actual letters provided, is randomly generated each time.

As Gabrielle once nearly said, others may of course take a different view...

Istenem · Post by **Istenem** » Tue May 06, 2008 12:11 pm

i'd take a different view. it seems to me that the letters given are individually weighted or, at the least weighted by colour. ZQXJ are not going to trip anyone up but loads of Vs and Cs can be more problematic. the game's main defence mechanism is the points target but i do get the impression that the software works to more sophisticated parameters than 'chuck out 117 random tiles'.
in no game will you get fewer Es than Fs for example and imo the weighting seems to be very good overall (except, like most word games there are too many Is). when you get the forced JP game (800 or whatever) in the thicko arms, just to make sure that the player doesn't foul it up, you will get a noticeably easier selection than if you are playing at the playhouse in colchester.

either way it is more fair than the Q&A equivalent of endless gamebreaker questions. any game of WU is winnable if you are good enough, only once have i seen a target higher than my PB and that was after i'd just got it. any game of soup is winnable if you are not a cretin.