Bonus for creativity

Case number:845818-2004453
Topic:Game: Social
Opened by:Bruno Kestemont
Opened on:Saturday, November 11, 2017 - 10:33
Last modified:Thursday, September 13, 2018 - 11:30

Following discussion about Sketchbox puzzles in the latest Science Chat (, what about giving an extra point bonus to players who shared a variety of high scoring different designs to Scientists? Ideas are welcome here.

Possible ideas:

1-Knowing that there is a decreasing return/time in a puzzle life (on constant wiggle power), track this curve for top 50 solutions and shared to scientist ones. Then select the latest return/move with a jump of more than x points. Take this one and add a default bonus for "potential remaining small gains". The players have 2 possible strategies from this point: OR they try to find a following "big" jump, OR they still work on small refinements expecting to gain more than the default bonus.

Example: -999999 + 999999 + 5000+ 2500 +1000+500 +100 +50 = 9150 (+ default bonus = 9200 credited).
From here, the player might still try to evolve or not,example:
9150 + 25+ 5 = 9180 (= still 9200 credited)
9180+20+20+5 = 9205 (> 9200 => 9205 credited)

Hopefully, when a player thinks that it will be impossible to do better than the default bonus, he/she could stop and try new design.

2-A flag for Medium or High wiggle power: once it's activated, every new point is penalized by -1/2 point. With this penalty on "after medium wp" playing, players might prefer to focus to low or auto wp, or new design.

3-Combination of 1 and 2: the default bonus only counts until a flag "medium' is activated: from this point, the "target credited score" is fixed till the end. A second default bonus is then activated from the flagged "medium" point. Same rule untill the end.

Example above:
Starting from the latest low wiggle solution 9180 (credited 9200):
9180+ (Med wp) 50 + 50 + 20 = 9300 (+50 bonus low + 20 bonus medium) = 9370 credited
player might want to still fine tune: 9300 + 10 +5 = 9315 (+ 50 bonus low)= 9365 (still 9370 credited)

(Sat, 11/11/2017 - 10:33  |  1 comment)

Joined: 09/24/2012
Groups: Go Science

Or scientist bonus for the 5 more interesting "share to scientists" puzzles ?

After all, we are all Humans. Why should we be evaluated by an machine only ?

If we are useful because of our pattern vision, I would find logical that human scientists are better placed than computers to evaluate a designed pattern.

Exactly as human referee has the latest word for most sports.

You could claim that there would be less transparency ? Let's then limit the reward in points the following way:

-first the puzzle closes with normal automatic reward.
-when the scientists feel it good, they might without notice or justification, add 1 extra points to the players whose solutions was in the top 5 most interesting within the reviewed solutions.

Example: I win a puzzle with a non-interesting solution, but I shared another one that scientists found interesting. I keep my ranking but my 100 pts turn to 100 + 1. This 101 pts remain for long in my "best scores" list for player's overall ranking. This is true for evolvers as well if they share an evolved solution to scientists (in order to encourage them to evolve creative designs).

This referee's judgment should remain quick and preliminary, open to subjectivity like in the "Through the eyes of a scientist" video


Developed by: UW Center for Game Science, UW Institute for Protein Design, Northeastern University, Vanderbilt University Meiler Lab, UC Davis
Supported by: DARPA, NSF, NIH, HHMI, Amazon, Microsoft, Adobe, Boehringer Ingelheim, RosettaCommons