London highscore name

[Istenem]

a cops & robbers scoreboard in central London has the top score by FCHAT HACKS PC, anyone care to own up?

[grecian]

a cops & robbers scoreboard in central London has the top score by FCHAT HACKS PC, anyone care to own up?

Not me. The only FC-inspired name I've ever used has been "FC" when playing with others from on here.

[dmac]

xyz

[grecian]

I did topscore on one yesterday with 180ish, what's the record anyway - do people give up through boredom?

Rather idiotically I persisted and played a 479 game about 15-18 months ago (IIRC). I only won £1 and lots of people on here rightly queried why I bothered. Nowadays I rarely bother going above 100 unless I'm "trapped" (i.e. above 100 without four swagbags to end the game there and then). If three keys haven't appeared by about 80, they won't (IMHO). The highest I've seen apart from that was about 250, I think. Reckon someone on here reported they'd seen or done a 300+ recently.

[Istenem]

saw another of these in my 'hood. C&R again and below VEGGIE CON CARNE's 202, some joker put FCHAT MUG on 70-odd.

[donttellhimpike]

i believe i may have the answer to this guys.

i have been chatting to some other players who i have known for years who are not members on here.

they have all expressed their dismay and distaste that i should be interested in sharing machine info or stories from the past on a public forum. they cannot see the point in it at all, they believe the site is completely industry controlled and can only serve to injure the chances of the serious player.

they even believe that the PM's are watched.

i would suggest therefore that a highscore name such as "fchat mug" is something to do with this. i have my candidates for the culprit and i'm sure those who know me on here will realise who i have in mind!!


the pike

[Istenem]

i can understand that people who do this for a living might need to be coy but i'm not in that boat. ISTENEM's cloak has slipped and anyone who could care who i am itrw could find out easily enough but i'm no threat so i don't suppose anyone would bother.
tbh i couldn't think of many things more dull than a journalism chatroom. i do SWP as a hobby so have an interest when i'm not on facebook. but i have every respect for those who can make a living from the boxes and, from a lay pov, think it's a bit wet to bitch on scoreboards. (or have a username which is hidden whenever you log on but you never post except when you are threatened with a cull. that's hypocrisy.)

i can confirm that PMs on this site are P and that the itbox doesn't have a camera inside it to take snaps of winners.

[cool]

being perhaps 1 of 3/4 pros on the site Im not bothered who knows who I am, although I wouldnt be happy with hordes of hacked off publicans camped on my doorstep. I talk to manufacturers,engineers and publicans on occasions no problems. Its true that other pro quiz machine players may check the site but not ever contribute and I have been told by a London pro that his quiz acquaintances are worried that they will be monitered so wont even register! I started off as a non - contributing watcher but thought its parisitical to reap the entertainment without putting anything in.

[QuizMaster]

I don't share the concern of those players. Whilst I agree with them that this is an undoubtedly industry watched site, I don't think that there is anything on here which is ever particularly sensitively discussed. It's not rocket science to talk about the best strategy for playing Bullseye, discuss the use of phone cameras on card and memory games, and argue the merits of whether going cross eyed helps you bash Spot the Difference.

I like this site. But I don't rely on it's advice to pay my bills.

[cp999]

I'm sure the site is monitored also - but I would hope that nobody would be stupid enough to post, for example, "I've worked out how to always empty game x by doing blah". No pro would do that as they would want to keep the info to themselves.

Posting anecdotes about long-gone machines seems like harmless nostalgia to me.

[dmac]

xyz

[donttellhimpike]

dmac, you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. sorry if thats my fault!! this site is better than text but not always perfect for debate.

i was saying that i believe the person/persons responsible for anti fruitchat posts are those group of pro players known to me in London who i converse with but are not members of this site.

i was simply offering a solution to the initial post!!

i certainly believe this site to be harmless enough, while operating as it does, although the friend who is most anti fruitchat (probably the same chap as cool mentions ) states that there is simply never any reason to provide anyone with "extra info".

in fact i am very pleased i made the decision to join fruitchat, as i believe i have previously stated, it has brought me extra mates and solidified older ones.

cheers for now,

pikester

[dmac]

xyz

[grecian]

I'd agree that Pike's mates (at least one of whom I suspect I know as well) are being a bit overly paranoid, although as we've discussed before paranoia seems to be a fundamental part of the pro mindset. No doubt there are industry watchers on these forums but I'd personally doubt that they set the site up initially or are able to monitor PMs (incidentally does anyone know who does own FC?)

As QM says, the discussion on here, whilst always entertaining and interesting, probably does not tell industry anything they don't know already. I've no doubt people here, to greater and lesser extents, exercise discretion about what they post and clearly none of us are going to start posting stuff which might work against us in the long run.

[Nil Satis]

I'm sure the site is monitored also - but I would hope that nobody would be stupid enough to post, for example, "I've worked out how to always empty game x by doing blah". No pro would do that as they would want to keep the info to themselves.

This has always been the point where I think paranoia takes over from common sense. In all my time playing the machines I can think of no more than a handful of genuine bugs or errors that have enabled anyone to win consistently on a game without their also having the required speed of reading and response, dedication, ability to learn and so on. The recent example of the Top of the Pops 'free credits' is a case in point - you still needed an above average music knowledge to exploit it.

The most money I have ever made from a game was from the Pepsi Music Quiz but there were no hidden tricks there - it simply required a LOT of dedication to learn enough of the answers, during which time I lost money on the game, and then the high boredom threshold to handle long tedious games. It was impossible for anyone to read a post on here and simply start winning on the game without putting in those long hours. QuizMaster made exactly the same point recently about the original X Factor game.

As for industry monitoring, we do have concrete proof of that from the appearance of several of the names on here within games (and personally I think there has also been a definite increase in questions involving Everton recently on various games, so thanks for that guys! ). I can see how the industry might use this board to close a loophole such as the TOTP bug but as I said those things are few and far between and anyway it seems hard to believe that an industry of that size relies on us telling them about a weakness in one of their games.