Proposed change to "Overall" Category

Case number:671071-997587
Topic:Game: Other
Opened by:auntdeen
Opened on:Monday, April 28, 2014 - 17:34
Last modified:Wednesday, April 30, 2014 - 08:14

We've always had players who are excellent, but prefer to focus on one puzzle at a time. With the NC, we have many players who are now more limited than they used to be with the number of clients that they can run.

I'd like to suggest a change to our current "overall" category (not the global rankings).

Instead of 40 out of 50, lowering the number to 20 out of 50 would make good sense for a few reasons.

First - it would allow some of our very best players to feel less time constraints when focusing on a good solution rather than trying to work on all puzzles (or 80% of them) at once.

Second - those who now can only run half the clients they used to can still be competitive.

Third - by allowing more freedom with this, it could be very beneficial for CASP by allowing players to really work on the puzzles they are excelling at without fear of dropping ranks by not opening every one.

Fourth - especially during vacation seasons, this allows players to relax a bit without the worry of dropping ranks

Fifth - a good number of our players either have physical issues, or do caregiving for family members with issues - this allows them a little more freedom to be competitive.

Sixth - this would also allow those who like to focus on evo rather than solo more freedom to pursue their strength without affecting their "overall" ranking.

Seventh - any returning vet can be competitive more quickly, encouraging them to stick around.

Last CASP season, we had 56 CASP puzzles and 14 others during the season (mid-May through mid-August). Reducing the 40 out of 50 to 20 out of 50 would make a major difference in everyone's stress level - and probably better results.

IMHO, this would be a relatively easy change for the devs to implement, and could make a whole lot of players a bit happier.

(Mon, 04/28/2014 - 17:34  |  12 comments)

jflat06's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 hours 31 min ago. Offline
Joined: 09/29/2010
Groups: Window Group

A lot of these reasons were the same reasons we had for making the category system to begin with. It's an open question what the best numbers for X out of Y are, and we're definitely open to feedback on this.

What do other people think?

Joined: 09/21/2011

50 sounds like a lot. 20 sounds a little low to me.

Joined: 04/15/2012
Groups: Beta Folders

I'd say lowering is good. 20-30 out of 50 is all right with me.

Susume's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 week 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 10/02/2011

I'd also like to see 20-30 out of 50. 50 puzzles is about 3 months, except during CASP when it will likely be a little over 2 months. I would not want the window any shorter than that; just lower the number to count out of that window.

spmm's picture
User offline. Last seen 8 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 08/05/2010
Groups: Void Crushers

Imo the CASP category should include all CASP 11 puzzles, no windows.

gitwut's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 years 33 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/18/2012
Groups: Contenders

I don't think that the category rankings are terribly accurate anyhow, so I don't see any harm in experimenting further with the numbers.

Joined: 06/06/2013
Groups: Gargleblasters

As a relative newbie who just hit her first "end game" situation in the last couple weeks, I have simultaneously started limiting the number of puzzles I play. I am trying to figure out better strategies and frameworks to improve my score. I have a fairly old desktop, so I can't do too many puzzles at one time if I want to run recipes. If both amateurs and experienced puzzle solvers would do better, the smaller number of puzzles in the ranking would be better.
The other alternative for those of us progressing would be an intermediate category. However, I think this would take away the sense of satisfaction of finally going from happy at a top 100 score to being happy at top 50. I also think it would be to hard to draw the line. I would rather compete over my head than always have a slam dunk, but that is me.
I don't know what CASP is outside of special competition -- admit to ignoring that, so no opinion about CASP in particular.

spmm's picture
User offline. Last seen 8 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 08/05/2010
Groups: Void Crushers

I don't see any value in changing this, it gives people with all the time in the world to play and good equipment an even bigger advantage.
At the moment people who play all the puzzles and do well get rewarded by rank, reducing the competition would reduce the value of the game surely?

people may see lower rank as a less competent player but we just have to live with that.
I often take breaks from folding for a variety of reasons and it annoys me to see my scores plummet, and to have to climb back up again, but that is the game.
it would be less annoying if there was a ladder that showed players who had made the top 15-20 in soloist. So even with an rank 3xxxx a good player would be visible there.
There is also not much incentive to get rank one solo when the evo player who put two points on the solution by walking it is the one listed in the puzzle history front page, not the soloist who spent days getting it there.
My $0.02

Joined: 09/21/2011
Groups: Void Crushers

I would say for all categories, 70% of the counting number would be good.
The counting number should be reflecting the frequency of the category (with a minimum of 10).
The current counting number on the prediction category is too low, it should be something like 25 or 30.

These are my 2 cents.

Joined: 04/19/2009

I selected the 20 with CASP in mind - there were 70 puzzles during last CASP season, which was 3 months - an average of 6 running concurrently for the 3 months.

This season looks as if it may be more hectic, from the email sent to groups participating today. The organizers plan to release 10 targets each week. We don't get all of them (some are server only, and some are simply too large for foldit). But we do get some of the targets multiple times.

Let's assume one extra average, and let's assume some targets will be at our max for size (and we haven't had many larger proteins yet, so we don't know how NC will handle them or whether our computers are up to the task).

Some people will really only be able to focus on one or two in a week, because of the limitations described above. IMHO, it makes the most sense to relieve the stress and allow players the most freedom to contribute to the best of their abilities - and still enjoy some competition.

After CASP, it may make more sense to take a greater number of the 50. But it seems as if there is nothing to lose by giving this a try, and better to err on the low side when we are about to become deluged!

This would only affect the Category "Overall" (which is currently 40 of your last 50) - it doesn't affect the normal global soloist ranking at all, so it doesn't change the usual soloist competition. It would only affect that one Category.

wisky's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 47 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 07/13/2011

20 seems like a good number to me, but 20-30 seems better. I like auntdeen's reasons for suggesting this.

spmm's picture
User offline. Last seen 8 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 08/05/2010
Groups: Void Crushers

I really don't see the reason or need to change the number of puzzles in the categories except up. I can't see how it would improve any solutions.

CASP is an international competition, it is difficult. Even more difficult for the scientists. It runs for a limited time, the CASP puzzles get played in the time frame or they don't.

Some players may decide to focus on CASP alone because they see that as a way to make a contribution and are not all that fussed about their 'overall' score, they play for the science with the score as a bonus; other people may not and may only do a few CASP puzzles, they may produce the best folds, who knows.
Everyone is in the same boat so everyone's stress levels will be what they make them.
Getting seriously stressed by a score in an online game is a health concern for the individual.

Why introduce special conditions apparently for the benefit of 'some players' who remain undefined?
I don't get it.


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