Cheating
Anonymous
GUESTS
I hope the cheaters are happy that they find a way to beat what is supposed to be a FUN game. So to the godzillas of the world I hope you are happy with the knowledge that you evidently can't measure up to competition. Your like the bully on the block that "folds his tent" when the little kid says "enough is enough" and punches him in the mouth. Your LOSERS and you all know who you are.
Comments
That's a pretty damned impressive time.
In any case "cheating" is a very subjective term; if there were prizes for the fastest time (thank goodness there aren't) then speed aids might be considered cheating. If we were playing competitive games (hearts, crib) then they might be considered cheating. Solitaire is a game against yourself only - the clue's in the name after all - with a leader board just to add interest so "cheating" with speed aids is perhaps self-delusion, certainly not a crime.
Personally I enjoy seeing if I can get in the top ten at SHT, I love it when I'm the first to win a difficult game and I aspire to do as well at 40T as buddha, jabba or wishy because I suck at that one.
If some players choose to keep playing the same game until they can log on and solve it in less than 10 seconds that's their lack of a life and has no impact on my enjoyment of the various challenges.
The replay button is definitely not cheating. I replay a game when I get stuck and I want to start over. The alternative would be to undo back to the beginning, but that's too much of a pain. I do think replaying a game once you've won simply to improve your time is a bit weak. To me it turns a thinking game into a dexterity game.
-David
I have a suggestion that I think would help out on this issue. I think it is worth a trial run.
I haven't played every game here, so I'm not sure this would be applicable to them all. But from what I have played, it seems the game presents you with three perimeters when you have finished: Score, Time, and Number of Moves. Only the score and time seem to matter in the final standings though.
What if you took all three of those into consideration in the rankings? And do it by Score, Number of Moves, and Time? I would think it would be relatively easily to code that since you collect the data already. And it would be easy to work out.
For instance in Yukon: Anybody with a score of 52 is going to beat anybody with a lesser score. But within that, anybody with a score of 52 and, say, 100 moves is going to beat anybody with the same score butmore moves. And time would only become relevant after the first two are determined.
I doubt that anything will actually stop the people who want to violate the spirit of the games, but this would certainly slow them down and make them work harder and longer to get to the top of the rankings. And once they did, they could be fairly easily knocked off by somebody who didn't practice to lower their times.
-David
Dave