On global points
|Opened on:||Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 14:20|
|Last modified:||Saturday, January 7, 2012 - 00:56|
According to the FAQ page, global points are assigned as follows:
Points = Max(1, RoundUp( 1 - (Rank - 1)/(NumPlayers - 1) )^7 ) * 100)
Indeed, the formula is used for calculating group scores and soloist scores. However, it seems to me that the number of players from the soloist competition is used for calculating the evolver and all hands scores as well. For example, take a look at an earlier puzzle, "136: Cell Adhesion" ( http://fold.it/portal/node/985906 ):
- With 42 groups, the group score correctly decays to 1 at 20th place [(21/41)^7 = 0.00925].
- However, notice that the evolver scores and all hands scores are awarded the same way as soloist scores, in the sense that you get the same number of points if you end up with the same rank. As a result, the lowest all-hands score is a 3, and the lowest evolver score is an 84.
Or take the recent "150: Rosetta Decoy 12" for example ( http://fold.it/portal/node/986180 ):
- 37 groups, with the group scores calculated correctly
- 247 soloists, so 121st place is the cutoff for 2 points
- 20 evolvers, but the scores are calculated as if there were 247 players. For example, I expected my 2nd place result [obtained by local wiggling a teammate's solution to the next full point] to yield a score of 69 [(18/19)^7 = 0.685] rather than the observed 98 [which would make sense if it's calculated as (246/247)^7 = 0.972].
==> Obviously, the problem affects everyone across the board, so it's at least being "equally unfair" to everyone. But this also means that, in the most extreme scenario, one can always get free evolver points simply by asking a teammate to uploading the starting configuration, opening the "solution," and the pressing wiggle. Why? Because even a last place in the evolver competition will yield more than a single point simply because there are always fewer evolvers than soloists in a puzzle.
Bottom line: Is this a bug, or was this intended? If it's indeed a bug, I would not mind about updating to the correct scoring system starting at a recent puzzle if re-calculating scores for every puzzle since 2008 would be too much work.