Void Crushers - AHAP Members Collecting "Points" in Beginners Puzzles ??
| Case number: | 671076-985681 |
| Topic: | Server |
| Opened by: | Aotearoa |
| Status: | Resolved |
| Assigned: | admin |
| Priority: | 3 |
| Type: | Suggestion |
| Opened on: | Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 10:15 |
| Last modified: | Wednesday, March 4, 2009 - 03:45 |
I just noticed somethings that need to be modified so the "Game" can maintain some kind of balance with credibility and stability in rewarding Groups who are promoting team spirit and growth, recruitment and training of new players, rather than cash in on minor management issues of player movements/rankings. I listed a few puzzles that I would officially protest collecting group points, whether or not they have been present or absent since we all took losses in total points issued with the newly formed Void Crushers "re-introduction" into the exsisting ongoing game. I don't think since I joined the RDF team, I got the chance to cash in on beginner puzzles, which these below have. Thanks for your Attention and any explanation I may have miscalculated. AOTEAROA.
Some examples are:
125 (<150): Ice Binding
14 Nina 49 262 Void Crushers 9,437 "53"
122 (<150): Grand Challenge 6
14 Jwb52z 139 92 Another Hour Another Point 9,716 "52"
121 (<150): Grand Challenge 5
3 champuli1 86 221 Another Hour Another Point 10,045 "93"
23 Jwb52z 139 92 Another Hour Another Point 9,963 "39"
119 (<150): Grand Challenge 3
53 Nina 49 262 Void Crushers 10,646 "11"
119 (<15): Grand Challenge 3
14 champuli1 86 221 Another Hour Another Point 10,768 "71"
118 (<150): Grand Challenge 2
37 Lartza 89 320 Another Hour Another Point 9,040 "27"
117 (<150): Transport Mutant
7 LeBerk_Folds 69 336 Void Crushers 9,224 "82"
Thank you...
There was an interesting omission to your subject line, Aot. You left out RDF as one of the teams benefitting from the under 15/150 puzzles. After all, RDF obtained a whopping 420 points on just 3 under 15/150 puzzles: 124, 125, and 126 . I would say that to be fair, your analysis should have included these results. I also support the change Pletsch suggested.
Computer Game's High Score Could Earn The Nobel Prize In Medicine.
ScienceDaily (May 9, 2008) — Gamers have devoted countless years of collective brainpower to rescuing princesses or protecting the planet against alien invasions. This week researchers at the University of Washington will try to harness those finely honed skills to make medical discoveries, perhaps even finding a cure for HIV.
"We're hopefully going to change the way science is done, and who it's done by," said Popovic, who presented the project today at the Games for Health meeting in Baltimore. "Our ultimate goal is to have ordinary people play the game and eventually be candidates for winning the Nobel Prize."
Eventually, the researchers hope to present a medical nemesis, such as HIV or malaria, and challenge players to devise a protein with just the right shape to lock into the virus and deactivate it. Winning protein designs will be synthesized in Baker's lab and tested in petri dishes.
High-scoring players will be credited in scientific publications the way that top Rosetta@home contributors already are credited for their computer time.
" If the rewarding of FOLD.IT Points, to a player/candidate/Group etc... who/m has not put in the hard credible work, learning or teaching to earn them fair and square, without any doubt from the minds of those who judge the evolution of the game and give such credit, the above statement from the Creators was incorrect, unjustified and misleading to those of us who are here, trying to earn the moral respect and the honorable reward from our community and the society who awards such a Prize. "
I personally do not believe they *fold.it* are awarding points on purpose to any one group or team unjustly, but those individuals, players or groups whom have intentionally gone out of their way to defraud or gain such credit by doing so at the expense of those whom play in the belief that their honest work will one day earn them the honor of such a reward as the Nobel Prize, have no respect for the greater vision of the game, science and mankind, thus not deserving to be apart of such an environment that we are all trying to create for one another to achieve on the greater scale.
Renton Braden Mathew Innes
aka Aotearoa
Richard Dawkins Foundation Member.
Another idea along the lines of Pletsch's.
Individual scores remain the same.
Team scoring can be similar to individual scoring. Teams get beginner credit for <15 if the team score is <15, and credit for <150 if the team score is <150. This way, new teams can still get an early boost which will help encourage new teams to form.
I like it.
What about replacing the <15 and <150 puzzles with some of the first played puzzles?
We know the old top scores of them and the goal could be: "Try to beat the old best!" or "Try to get into the old top five!"
And if one makes it, he gets a reward (maybe a little gold, silver or bronce medal on a player's page, depending on how good his score was).
I like the idea of using the older puzzles instead of the <150 and <15 puzzles. Maybe as part of All Hands mode or similar?
Yes Axcho its a good idea; also Steve's idea that the points for these puzzles should be added to the player's global score but not added to the team score should be implemented.
| Topic: Game: Other » Server |
| Status: Open » Resolved |
| Assigned: Anonymous » admin |
| Type: Copyedit » Suggestion |
Steve, your idea of not using the <15 and <150 puzzles in group points has been implemented. It has meant quite a change to group points. For comparison, here are the are the top 10 groups before the change:
| Rank | Group | Global Score |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | Another Hour Another Point | 3021 |
| #2 | Richard Dawkins Foundation | 2880 |
| #3 | Void Crushers | 2811 |
| #4 | xkcd | 1166 |
| #5 | Pitney Folders | 1165 |
| #6 | Russian team | 1066 |
| #7 | Oma Gawd | 1051 |
| #8 | L'Alliance Francophone | 991 |
| #9 | Czech National Team | 859 |
| #10 | BOINC@Poland | 778 |
Here they are, after the change. I have actually had to include groups down to rank 19, so much have some slipped:
| Rank | Group | Global Score |
|---|---|---|
| #1 | Another Hour Another Point | 2089 |
| #2 | Void Crushers | 2047 |
| #3 | Richard Dawkins Foundation | 1508 |
| #4 | Pitney Folders | 1164 |
| #5 | Oma Gawd | 1051 |
| #6 | Russian team | 716 |
| #7 | L'Alliance Francophone | 593 |
| #8 | Skeptics Guide to the Universe | 534 |
| #9 | xkcd | 492 |
| #10 | Free-DC | 461 |
| #11 | SETI.Germany | 434 |
| #12 | Czech National Team | 353 |
| #13 | Catalunya | 242 |
| #14 | Texas Fold'em | 238 |
| #15 | University of Chicago | 227 |
| #16 | ROMANIA Team | 224 |
| #17 | Mmm Helix Fries. | 203 |
| #18 | Team China | 202 |
| #19 | BOINC@Poland | 186 |
If you wish to pursue your other idea, Madde, please post it in a separate feedback topic. Thanks!
Cheers,
admin
That was a huge impact.
![](http://128.95.1.228:8000/tracking_pixel.gif?events=scAdd&f=1111&wdata={"x":12, "y":11}){kind=tracking}
I would suggest that Teams get no credit for <15 and <150 puzzles
Individual player credits would remain the same, but for teams it's very unbalanced, where a small stable team is eligible for up to 100pts per puzzle if they do well, but a large team that is changing or growing can get up to 300pts per puzzle if they do well.
I think this impacts most small or single person teams. Not only are they at a disadvantage because of the amount of hours they are able to spend on foldit, but for other teams to be able to obtain three times the number of points for simply having new players, is a bit of a slap in the face for those that are struggling to move up the ranks but cannot access these easier puzzles.