Good points. Thinking about it again maybe I should have said that the game is random within certain parameters, i.e I can see how it must have some limits in terms of the minimum numbers of certain letters that it must give, particularly the vowels.
I do agree with you that the game itself is better for not trying to spoil your chances of a clearance in quite as blatant a way as some of the Q&A games can - in the previous version, where as I understand it QWERTY was the only 'Q + non U' word allowed, then it would have been easy to prevent a clearance simply by including 5 Qs and no Us each time.
This is one of the reasons why it is the only non-Q&A game I ever play with any sort of regularity!
Can't find the old WU thread, so I'll just make a new one
-
cp999
- Senior Member
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: not where I was yesterday
Yes, I would agree with that (perhaps there are predefined maximum and minimum numbers for frequency of each letter?). It can certainly happen that one game you will get 10+ ZQXJs, and if you don't win, the next game you may only get 5 or them, with the points target very similar. Also Q distribution was not strictly controlled in the very first WU, as you could get more Qs than Us. It would be interesting if tile distribution was used in an attempt to control scoring potential - with the current dictionary I don't think churning out a lot of Cs and Vs (often cited as spoiler letters) would affect those with a good Scabble knowledge as they would clear anyway, but just play a lot of "silly" words like CACA and VAV.Nil Satis wrote: 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 agree with Istenem that there are too many Is - if I personally was designing it in an attempt to make grids unclearable in a subtle way, I would try to do it through an excess number of them as I'd say it's the hardest vowel to get rid of when you have too many (iirc it is the only vowel for which there is not a legitimate 3 letter word comprising two of that vowel).
-
Matt Vinyl
- Senior Member
- Posts: 7198
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: Lost in the outback, Bryan
-
roberto la vigna
- Senior Member
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 3:04 pm
-
cp999
- Senior Member
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: not where I was yesterday
I stand corrected.. the hazard of having old SOWPODS for reference purposes. However I remembered today than the now defunct TextTiles game accepted "III" (honestly!).roberto la vigna wrote:IWI is good - tho' came in recently with the Collins Scrabble dictionary.cp999 wrote:I is the only vowel for which there is not a legitimate 3 letter word comprising two of that vowel.
-
roberto la vigna
- Senior Member
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 3:04 pm
-
roberto la vigna
- Senior Member
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 3:04 pm
-
roberto la vigna
- Senior Member
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 3:04 pm
Have you turned pro now VB? Seemed to remember ages ago you posting saying you were going to spend a summer living the life of a pro and seeing how you got on.roberto la vigna wrote:Four pubs in Wokingham - reasonably nice place to visit.fotherz wrote:Insane in the membrane.
Location?
Did you do it? Or are you doing it?
-
roberto la vigna
- Senior Member
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 3:04 pm
I did it for a month in London a year ago or so - made enough to live off tolerably well. Was good fun, too.ZAX wrote:Have you turned pro now VB? Seemed to remember ages ago you posting saying you were going to spend a summer living the life of a pro and seeing how you got on.roberto la vigna wrote:Four pubs in Wokingham - reasonably nice place to visit.fotherz wrote:Insane in the membrane.
Location?
Did you do it? Or are you doing it?
Not doing it pro now.
