[eclipsegirl]

An idea is to maybe add a "NORMAL OCD" achievement,
which you get after solving all Calcudoku puzzles 30 days in a row.

I like it. Think about the K-2 achievement idea I sent you a few years ago.

[pnm]

I like it. Think about the K-2 achievement idea I sent you a few years ago.

ah right, took some searching, but this was indeed just about 2 years ago

(for solving the 21 x 21 puzzle, created to celebrate 21212121 puzzles solved )

edit: just realized the missed opportunity at 33333333 puzzles solved

edit 2: checking the logs, puzzle 33333333 was a medium 4x4,
and was solved on November 23rd, 2024, by someone without an account from Nenagh, Ireland

[crabmouse]

For extra puzzles or puzzles with an expiry of more than one day, how are they handled?
For example, if one solves all the December 2024 extra puzzles during the following January 2025, are they credited to 2024 (year of posting) or to the 2025 year (year of solving) in the YTD totals?

[pnm]

For extra puzzles or puzzles with an expiry of more than one day, how are they handled?
For example, if one solves all the December 2024 extra puzzles during the following January 2025, are they credited to 2024 (year of posting) or to the 2025 year (year of solving) in the YTD totals?

puzzles from a year not equal to the current year are not counted towards the "Year to date" total.

(so short answer is "no" )

They are also not credited to a previous year total (in fact only one total is kept, which is reset to zero on Jan 1st, 00:00:00).

Bonus puzzles and user puzzles are also not counted.

[paulv66]

Patrick, I’m not sure your answer is 100% accurate. You seem to be suggesting that a puzzle that is published in December but not solved until January does not count towards either year’s total.

Based on the way in which you dealt with the situation when I solved a puzzle in January within the time limit for a puzzle published in December, this counted towards the previous year’s total. And it allowed me to be included in the list of those who had solved all puzzles in one or more years.

Are you now changing the rules so that only puzzles that are solved within the year they were published will be recognised when assessing whether someone has achieved a 100% record for that year?

[pnm]

Patrick, I’m not sure your answer is 100% accurate. You seem to be suggesting that a puzzle that is published in December but not solved until January does not count towards either year’s total.

Based on the way in which you dealt with the situation when I solved a puzzle in January within the time limit for a puzzle published in December, this counted towards the previous year’s total. And it allowed me to be included in the list of those who had solved all puzzles in one or more years.

Are you now changing the rules so that only puzzles that are solved within the year they were published will be recognised when assessing whether someone has achieved a 100% record for that year?

No, not changing the rules. The points are still counted towards your total, just not the "year to date" total,
simply because a new year has started, and the "year to date" total was reset to 0 when the new year started.

As a side note, I'll need to double-check if the "ultra OCD" achievement is updated correctly if you solve a Calcudoku puzzle from the previous year
in the new year, when it's still possible (a 12x12 for example)(but I vaguely remember we discussed this before (?))

[paulv66]

As a side note, I'll need to double-check if the "ultra OCD" achievement is updated correctly if you solve a Calcudoku puzzle from the previous year in the new year, when it's still possible (a 12x12 for example)(but I vaguely remember we discussed this before (?))

Yes, we did and you adjusted your listing of ultra OCD achievers to reflect the fact that I had done just that. The discussion appears earlier in this thread.

[pnm]

Yes, we did and you adjusted your listing of ultra OCD achievers to reflect the fact that I had done just that. The discussion appears earlier in this thread.

Ah right, I really should read what I wrote myself