Medium Challenge (Gold Member): Make a change to your profile (Avatar)
Easy Challenge (all members): Make a change to your profile (Location, Hobbies or Comments)


Edit: those both would be to the game/quiz side profile, not the Forums profile. Also, it might be nice to cache the profile before a challenge change with the promise that the profile will revert to the original after the day's done. Giving folks the exercise in making the changes might spur them come back and update their profile on a non-challenge day.

Apologies if this has already been suggested or already exists!

I've been playing the "I'm the Expert!" challenge today against another player. ("Whoever holds the highest score today in a single Who's the Expert hourly game at midnight will win this challenge. Only your first 4 plays of this game today will be considered for this challenge, so pick your attempts wisely!")

Love it, by the way, and am waiting nervously to be wiped out as I speak.


Has it been (or Can it be) replicated to include other hourly games too such as Word Wizard, Smartest or even Quiz of the Hour? (Difficult level).



I love the one v one (twin) aspect - anything could happen - and the 4 game limit. I think more "twin/nemesis" set ups would be fun and could be used in various games, even just scoring higher on a specific quiz?

I believe the reason it is only set to expert is because it is a more even playing field. It depends on which category comes up; anyone could win. With easy game, for instance, there are some people who average 15 seconds or less, and that could be tricky to beat in a day.

Expert is more well-rounded, and it could be any category, so it's better for others.


Granted, I like the idea of having more of these, but I have a feeling they won't be made.

I agree; Expert is less a speed contest than other games.

Hmm. That seems a good point. My plan is foiled. You pesky kids!


PS I think maybe Quiz of the Hour is similar to Expert though??

Edited to cross out Q of the H suggestion. Far too open to cheating accusations.

How about Fill Me In? Too random? Or just random enough to make it a fair fight!

I do like the idea, though! I was thinking perhaps Obscurity or Gold Madness, as it's a more level playing field, but then it would only be available to Gold Members. Quiz of the Hour would work though!

There's nothing wrong with it being Gold Members only. There are several challenges already that are Gold Members only.

Yep, I think it would be a good challenge, but just mentioned that it'd be Gold in case Chavs isn't a GM.

Yes, I thought about Obscurity being suitable too and don't see a GM-only challenge as a bad thing. And the New Questions game (although it's a daily) might be another candidate?

(I'm not gold, but I'm treating myself to it for my next birthday. I was going to buy an anti-wrinkle cream but then I decided that wrinkles are all in the mind.)

What about a Nemesis challenge where you have to beat your partner's score in a given game (selected by the system) in the Global Challenge. You'd have two goes at it in a 24 hour period, and while you might be in different divisions the topic could just as well suit the player with the harder set as the other way around. So there seems like enough randomness to ensure that you'd have a decent chance at winning at least sometimes.

I like something like this-- doesn't even need to be GC. Could be 'beat so-and-so's score in this hourly game over the course of the day'. Whoever winds up with the highest score for the day wins. Could work for cumulative total for the day too.

Or you could work together for a cumulative score in an hourly game for Twin.

Ooh, yeah, how about this: You and your twin agree on an hourly game and between you score above a given total by midnight. The total to aim for could be higher if you decide the game between you than an alternative challenge where the system assigns the game to you.

========================

Another suggestion: play X quizzes [or score Y points on quizzes] authored by any members of Team Z.

That does rely on both twins being here, online, and willing to play along so to speak. It could lead to bad feeling/snippy messages if one twin "let the other one down" and the one putting the effort in didn't get credit for something their partner didn't/couldn't do.
Especially if someone going for the 10 a Day ended up with it and their twin wouldn't/couldn't help.

We originally decided not to come up with cumulative twin challenges because, as mentioned, it relies on both being there. We also decided against the cumulative nemesis challenge because that involves players having to play every hour. We ended up choosing only the expert nemesis one, with only four games possibly counted because it is the most even playing field there can be. So many categories come up, and you can choose any four to count towards your challenge. Only four games can possibly count (and only the top of all games will count, anyway) but if it were a cumulative game, it would be near impossible to beat players who play 23 hours a day and score 15 every hour (I, personally, need more sleep than that).


I also do not think this will work as well for other games. I could be wrong, but I thought it was originally suggested and rejected in the testing thread.



Personally, I like the idea for competing against someone in all the games; I pick certain players in the games and compete with them in my mind as it is... But I foresee problems with them, and I think those problems were already addressed somewhere in the multitude of pages of the beta thread.

I asked about in the testing thread, and yes, it was rejected, mostly because of speed demons in certain games. Expert! alone is the most even playing field, and you never know which category you'll be good at if you try.

I had also suggested a cumulative twin, which was also shot down in the testing thread. Now that I'm not brainstorming for ideas anymore, I understand the reasoning behind not including it.

Exactly! While brainstorming, everything sounds good. But, looking at it with a new perspective, finding new challenges is trickier than expected.

I love a good scavenger hunt. It's the thrill of the chase trying to track down those elusive quizzes. I did enjoy (but don't want to repeat) Mission Impossible. So I'd love a few scavenger hunts but without the quiz titles being given to you. I'd love to see something like
"Play __ quizzes with the word ___ in the title in at least ___ categories and score at least _ ."
I'd also make it that the player couldn't use the most obvious category so if it the word was "cat", any Animals quizzes wouldn't count. If the word was "cheese", Hobbies quizzes would be excluded.

Another way to do it would be to have themed scavenger hunts e.g. having to find 10 quizzes with at least one of the following words in them: hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades, and joker. You must find at least one quiz with each word in it i.e. one with Heart, one with club etc.
This sort of thing could be done with lots of topics - dogs, cats, birds etc, fruits and/or vegetables, people/things found in a hospital/school/gym/circus, people/things in "Titanic", Jack Nicholson movie titles, rooms in houses, musical instruments, sports etc, etc, etc.

I second Tizza's scavenger hunt.

I don't understand the challenge of WtE where only top four are counted toward whether your top beats the Nemesis top. Isn't top score top score, irrelevant of what third or second or fourth from the top were? So why isn't the fifth top counted? It's a non-winner by definition, as is second.
If you were to average the top four and then best average won, I'd understand the use of top four. But if a single game is used it makes no matter. Did I misinterpret something?

Only being able to score four times means you need to use some strategy, and pick topics with which you are comfortable (or not so comfortable, if you are running out of time in the day), rather than just playing every set all day long. It adds an extra dimension to the game play.

I thought it meant you could play four times and the highest of your four scores would be compared to your opponent's highest score. So don't waste your four plays on topics you're not confident in.

Thanks to both of you. That unconfuses some of the language I've read. "Only Four Count" in the challenge. Shouldn't that then be referred to as "1st 4"? The sixth play being good toward daily score but not the challenge score?

I like this idea too.

Thanks for all the ideas. I haven't read this thread in any sort of detail, and likely won't until I decide to do a round of additions. But I certainly will take this thread's ideas into consideration when we do get to that!

"Play X quizzes of the hour and get at least 50% on all of them. (Depending on how many - easy to difficult)"

2 challenges added from this suggestion. Triviaking, you have been granted the 2 challenges for testing. Go ahead!

Gotta love those new challenges.

"Suggest a title in the Author Challenges" (probably Easy)

Added. Guitargoddess gets it to test!

Hehe. I don't why that word tickles me so much. :P


Would it be too cruel to have a challenge in the "difficult" section being "complete three challenges today"? Of course, this would not be complete until you got 3 complete, so you would HAVE to purchase one for the day.

Too cruel, isn't it? Hmmm, never mind. :P



Weird, it didn't let me post this originally because the post I was apparently replying too was deleted.

"Too cruel, isn't it? Hmmm, never mind. :P"

I actually like that one.

If you add anymore today, I'll test one!