Make a new scorelist for new players

Case number:699969-995118
Topic:General
Opened by:Timo van der Laan
Status:Open
Type:Suggestion
Opened on:Friday, May 10, 2013 - 13:33
Last modified:Wednesday, July 3, 2013 - 05:12

A lot of new players dont last long. Maybe a seperate scoring category for players that have played for less than a year might help to keep them.
(Scoring only computed on the basis of the new players scores)
This next to the normal scoring. And maybe a question when people create a new account if they have played before and for how long.

(Fri, 05/10/2013 - 13:33  |  12 comments)


Angus's picture
User offline. Last seen 9 hours 23 min ago. Offline
Joined: 06/04/2008
Groups: Beta Folders

Is this just to cater to the ADHD kids who leave if they can't "win" the game in a couple of tries, or leave because they haven't risen to the top of the leaderboard in their first week? Part of the movement that everyone has to be a winner, and there are no losers, creating new generations of the entitlement class.

Joined: 06/30/2013
Groups: None

I am of the opinion that you could haved responded more respectfully. Your responce was not usefull, but sarcastic.

Angus's picture
User offline. Last seen 9 hours 23 min ago. Offline
Joined: 06/04/2008
Groups: Beta Folders

You have interpreted my response exactly as it was intended.

After being here two days, you feel you have an adequate picture of the environment here, and how much work it takes to make it anywhere near the top of the leaderboards ?

Come back after playing this for 6 months to a couple of years and then respond about how fast you think new players should immediately rise to the top.

katfish's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 years 45 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/09/2013

Thanks for the suggestion, Timo. I see where you're coming from and I agree that inspiring new folders to continue playing is a valid area to investigate. We'll explore this further.

Angus's picture
User offline. Last seen 9 hours 23 min ago. Offline
Joined: 06/04/2008
Groups: Beta Folders

We already have the <150 and <50 for the beginners. Now we need more????

Joined: 09/21/2011
Groups: Void Crushers

Those categories only last for a couple of puzzles before someone has collected more points. The gap with the other play kinds is too big in my opinion.

Angus's picture
User offline. Last seen 9 hours 23 min ago. Offline
Joined: 06/04/2008
Groups: Beta Folders

So maybe change it from <15 and <150 to <50 and <500 . Just keep it separated as it is now.

Joined: 12/06/2008
Groups: Contenders

I agree with increasing the time folderers can play in the "beginner" and "intermediate" classes. Raising those thresholds to fifty and five hundred points would allow new players, if they want, to refine their skills a bit more before they have to go head-to-head with we veterans.

Another suggestion, one I made directly to Dr. Baker, was to further modify the global/evolver scoring formula. Not too long ago, the score used a seventh power to calculate the points awarded per game. The exponent was lowered so that now, the score uses a sixth power, and consequently awards more points to players finishing in the lower half of the ranks. Reducing the exponent to four would award still more points to those lower-ranking players without greatly affecting the scoring of players finishing in the upper quartile or so.

Being able to accumulate more points, faster, can spark a greater desire to rise through the ranks, and could tip the balance in favor of moving a "meh!" player towards being a "rawr!" player.

jflat06's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 day 14 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 09/29/2010
Groups: Window Group

This is partly the intent of the "Beginner" category. We hope to improve on how this category works soon.

Joined: 09/21/2011
Groups: Void Crushers

It might be possible (and simple to implement) to take the Overall list and just select the players that have been playing for less than a year and make a ranking on that list.
So no new puzzle category is needed.

jflat06's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 day 14 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 09/29/2010
Groups: Window Group

That might work.

The issue, though, is that while that solves the site-wide points and rankings, these players are still competing on the same puzzles as the experienced players, so when they see their rank in game (which is what a new player is probably going to be paying the most attention to), they will see themselves doing poorly.

Joined: 09/24/2012
Groups: Go Science

With the present scoring scheme, I have the impression that running a lot of powerful clients on every puzzle pays more than doing good science job on few puzzles.

It is of course good to encourage people to participate a lot (the hall of fame is there to encourage this).

But I think the system should more reward players who does good on few puzzles, even on a longer period, than powerful pc owners playing all puzzle even with average medium results.

With limited resources (time or material), players have to choose either to score on soloist or to evolve for team and science. If you see that your team scores well and decide to only evolve, your soloist is automatically credited a 0 and this "1 point" is taken into account in your soloist ranking, "using the 8 best scores on the latest 10 puzzles of the category". If you go to serious hand folding for less than 50% of the puzzles, you will still score poorly in total. This is exactly what a new player could experiment. This is quite frustrating for people devoting their foldit resources to evolution, or for new players who need more time and resources for one single hand folding encouraging result.

A suggestion: Calculating the players score on his 7 (not 8) best on the last 10 puzzles

Just for diminishing the pressure to play all puzzles, rewarding extremely good punctual achievements and rewarding fidelity (= still 10 puzzles). So I hope encouraging players to "work seriously" (not just buying more computers and compensate quality with quantity).

And adopting the 2 more suggestions from tvdl and angus specifically for beginners. I would not give more points to players that are lower in the rank for a specific puzzle, because this is often the result of poor investment (like running a recipe without any hand investment).

Sitemap

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, RosettaCommons