Just a suggestion, petsinwater, you may be able to prevent the loss of contacts moving forward by developing a simple habit- at the start of each game, take a screenshot. That way, if snafu’s happen you have a reference to your games and you would be able to restart them when your situation improves.
Also, I believe that by clicking on the ‘Great look’ quick comment in a game that it automatically adds that person to your friends list. You could follow up with a quick friendly comment of your choice. If the player isn’t kind to you, perhaps they’re not worth your time. Sorry about your health. Take care.
Typo- so the player with little free time “can’t” play...
So the player who only has a little free time maybe on a Saturday can play this game? Way to shut people out.
Smart Match should be matching you with people who play at your pace. The counterproductive thing to do is only playing every few days because that’s what your current opponents are doing. Think about it. Maybe sit down for an hour and play two chumbot games straight through. Then use Quick Play for a few days. Each player has to take their turn before about 24 hours is up. There’s a countdown at the top of the screen. Unfortunately, Quick Play is a mini game, but you might like it. After playing more frequently for at least a week, at good guess, then perhaps Smart Match could start working better for you. This is just my idea that I just now thought up. I am just trying to help.
I don’t know how the developers coded Smart Match and I would be interested to know what the “pace” parameter is based on. There has to be code that monitors and stores the specific information of the frequency of every players’ gameplay, and then turns that into extractible data that is then compared to other players within the moment that we click to start a new game. But the frequency data is based on what exactly? A week’s worth of averages? A month? How close are the matches allowed to be? What takes priority, skill or pace?
A tangential remark to my musings over code is that I like the idea of having Smart Match give me more options. I can pick a chumbot according to skill- why must I be pared with others according to skill, when all I care about is pace of play? I like the idea of separate Smart Match options based on different parameters and I would be willing to wait for a match that actually fits the parameters.
That’s rather harsh. The smaller board provides a challenge from a different perspective.
The word and letter multipliers are arraigned in such a way that figuring your best move takes real ingenuity. Having a larger vocabulary and being willing to play around with the letters help. Quick game vs chumbots is fun. I would like to try it with people who I actually know too.
One advantage of the Quick Play is that it may attract more children. If they gravitate towards this mini game in favor of Smart Match, this may increase my chances of actually getting a challenging opponent when I start my big board game.
Maybe a little compassion is called for. Hint or not, players use their heads to find words.
Cool beans, let’s have some fun.
However many points your best word is, the hint will always point you in the right direction if you find another word that is at least three quarters of the points first (that’s 75%). If hint were to automatically give everyone the best word spot then it would eliminate part of the thought process. I’ll take a pass on that.
I like using premium stars. Between understanding how they work and doing a little basic arithmetic, one should be able to (easily) deduce where their best word should be. I always try to find at least 25 points just to see what premium stars will tell me- e.g. one star, my best word will be over 100 points; three stars, and my best word will definitely be under 50. Then it’s just a matter of looking at the point values of my tiles and comparing them with available multipliers on the board whilst keeping in mind the other bonuses, such as +10 for using five tiles.
Surely the arithmetic it’s good for the mind, as is unscrambling words.
Or try harder before using the hint.
I have been playing the anagram game Wordscapes everyday just for practice. Finding words at a quick glance comes a lot more easily for me now. I often find my best word immediately. Practice makes perfect.
Hint is a really nice option when one is stuck for a better word. It’s just a game, and a really awesome one at that- one that so many appreciate.
“Chumship,” that should be a valid word in the dictionary. *cry, tears, cry* Please add that word to the list of acceptable ones...
64 out of how many? The number on the bottom of the screen is inadequate information on its own to draw too many conclusions. What about 64 out of 100? That’s a majority. Out of 10,000? Hmm, maybe it’s better not to jump to conclusions.
I have seen it suggested that there should be an option for indicating the opposite- ‘I do not want this’. That seems like a bad idea to me for at least two reasons. For one, many people just go with the flow instead of thinking for themselves. Such a follower would likely hit the option that simply has more numbers next to it.
Also, like it’s not trackable how many different people visited the thread and didn’t click on wanting the thing. Just a matter of code.
Anyway, if you play better, you can use less hints.
Under ‘Rules’, ‘Beat the hint?’ How the hint works’ there is a thorough and logical explanation as to why hint won’t give you your best word spot automatically. I believe that understanding how the hints work is important. And being willing to do some basic arithmetic should help players figure out where their best word is regardless.
It would be too easy to cheat the system into giving you free hints that way. Think about it.
Nothing in life comes free. Even the gifts that children freely receive in a loving home- like food- someone somewhere had to work for it.
This is a high quality game to say the least. I for one have no qualms with spending a little in order to support the game. Everyone has a budget for recreation.
Realistically, where does all this awesomeness come from? This entire game and all the thought and work and care that is put into it? Ever think about the name PeopleFun? Our enjoyment actually matters. Pretty cool when you actually think about it.
So much crying over wanting everything to be free. Think long run- if everyone gives a little by buying the game and a few coins here and there then it will help ensure to keep this symbiotic thing going.
I think that I accidentally added people to my friends list by using quick chat option with them. You can rematch after the game is over. If they accept the game then they will start to appear on your list
As a small child my mother told me that it’s not possible to curse in our mother tongue (not English). I believed her for a very long time.
Playing quick games against the chumbots is actually a lot of fun. The different board layout creates a new perspective for finding your best word. It’s really good practice.
After playing several Quick Play sessions I must admit that the shift in strategy needed poses an interesting challenge. A lot of players say that they are playing against themselves for the sake of self improvement, as do I.
With the smaller board, figuring out the longest word you can often isn’t an option. The letter multiplier spots are arranged so that in combination with the word multipliers one may often find their best word that way. This calls for creative thinking when considering your letters and what words to make.
You may have the letters to make the word ‘disestablishmentarianism’, but your best word might be ‘slabs’.
Even though you have the time limit of about a day to make a move, plenty of players seem eager to finish the game straight through. Pretty neat. It’s nice to be able to complain I guess. Only fair to make a similar effort to make positive remarks I believe.
The Quick Play board is less than half the size of the regular board. And the amount of tiles is cut by nearly half. The board doesn’t really allow for getting really high scoring words or games. The game will be over in roughly 15 moves, as compared to the 25 or so in a regular game.
The Quick Play option feels like visiting the kiddy table at a party. While it’s nice to smile and be nice to the kids, ultimately adults want to mingle with their intellectual peers.
Even if Quick Play had a full game option, it could have an inevitable drawback. Smart Match gives you opponents according to skill and pace. If Quick Play just gives you other players based off of their signing up for Quick Play too, then other little problems may start cropping up- like being matched up more frequently with players who tend to resign. Maybe.
I like the idea of more game start options and I submitted a suggestion. Have yet to see if it gets posted.
Not necessarily, jojiieme, in Quick Play the board is smaller and there are less tiles. So far I don’t like it, but it would be reasonable to start and finish a few games before formulating conclusions. And “life” may still happen in those games too where people stop playing for whatever reason.
I don’t let most of my games sit for more than a day. I have found that since Smart Match my opponents have been more regular players too and I really like that a lot. It appears as if I am being matched with more players according to my pace of play.
Imho, buying the game to play chumbots infinitely is absolutely worth it for that alone!!
Reducing fractions... Greatest Common Factor... none of this rings a bell for anyone? I get wanting to see % at a glance but it’s really easy to figure out too.
Heather lover chum, I could be wrong, but it seems to be part of a tactful solution to the fact that some players simply resign a lot. I think you’re being overly self conscious. If anyone were to automatically think the worst of you, would you really want to be friends with them anyway?
You could eliminate from your games anyone who ever beats you and focus on beating Quacky constantly, but this game isn’t called WordStats...
The more games you play, the more you will have to win in order to increase the percentage of your overall wins. If, for example, an experienced player tends to win 4 out of every 5 games (that’s 80% btw), it’s actually more likely that the percentage will stay right about there.
Of course not all good players cheat.
How about every time another player castigates me for playing a word that is anomalous according to their repertoire I get some of their coins? It can be like a swear jar.
And be a good sport and finish your games. If you didn’t like the opponent, just don’t rematch. I usually don’t rematch when I suspect cheating.
That’s an interesting argument, prettyquilts. Almost feels like a rationalization. Definitely unique thinking. And quilts are pretty.
To the player who posted the idea- The topic of whether or not one is cheating and how one can tell has been discussed ad nauseam. For every point of evidence of cheating there is a rational counterargument. Getting some freebies when you get paranoid just doesn’t make sense.
While a degree of righteous indignation may be appropriate for the honest player, this mention of feelings of being “violated” really appears hyperbolic at best. Not to invalidate your feelings, quite the contrary. Simply that a sensible amount of perspective could really go a long way towards mitigating any negative feelings, thus enabling you to truly enjoy yourself more.
How about this: think positive and give others the benefit of the doubt. Maybe make a habit of smiling while you make your word. Try it. Think of all the reasons why you love this game. I bet the list is long😁
Why? If you want to know that much just look it up.
If they would play...