Self-fulfilling prophecy = Fold.it player strategies take their current form only as a reaction to the tools given.
Could it be that what we are seeing as a player strategy is nothing more than a reaction to the tools that were provided?
If the tool set given by Fold.it was different, the game playing/protein folding strategies would be very different. So what do we hope to learn here? How important is it to develop a broader set of folding tools with many different strategies and techniques.
For example, the game only saves a top score. If you make a bad move (loose many points by stressing the backbone in various ways) as you struggle back, resolving the issues in neighboring pairs, you might make some very good, new folds. However, if the overall score is not a new high, any interim work is lost should you quit before reaching a new high. So…. the only worthwhile increase producing scores are the small incremental scores you might see by walking the backbone (wiggling two or three segments at a time ONLY). Likewise, any serious large scale rebuilding is totally impossible unless you are successful. Not many will be fortunate enough to achieve a new top score after a major rebuild of more than a segment or two at a time.
Imagine if there were many different folding tools? I could name a dozen.
The feedback tracker offers ample opportunity to submit suggestions for new tools. As a matter of fact new best has already been implemented in the developer's preview from what I understand.
I wouldn't be surprised if different strategies would be dominant if the tools were significantly different. Can you think of an example scenario where a new tool or scoring system resulted in a certain new technique? I'm curious to hear what you have in mind.
I'd recommend saving games more often, phi. You can enter your notes in the save dialog, so you always can find your way back. That's what I do at least.
Axcho, regarding a tool that results in a new folding strategy: there are plenty of suggested tools in the feedback section that would do that. For example the ability to fold the backbone as a wire, while calculations are turned off. This particular tool would significantly reduce the time to achieve the structure that seems perfect for a molecule.
I know about the tools in the feedback tracker. I was more interested in hearing phi16's ideas on how the strategies would change as a result of different tools.
it makes sense that using the tools shapes the players methods, much as an artist's palette of colors and his materials shapes his work. (Or hers…as the case may be)
there are limitations presented by any toolset, as there are opportunities.
regarding states: you are aware of the intermediate save states provided by CTRL-SHIFT 1/2/3 and their respective restore-state functions CTRL-1/2/3 yes? this may go some way to providing you with further abilities…as does the recent inclusion of an intermediate "best" value.
Agreed on the dozen comment…I think I have that many in the que right now… ;)
I'll be happy to name a few new tools but I want to make sure you understand the problem I'm pointing to. If people are always going to return to best score then it is very difficult, if not impossible to start a rebuild which involves going back down in score perhaps 1000's of points in order to arrive at a new best. As soon as you give up on a local attempt all of your interim work is lost when you jump back to best score. So image going down 1000 points, finding a better solution which gives you a new 500 points in a different area, and then having to give back that 500 points when you hit last best button?
No wonder the strategies people gravitate towards and use are the ones that yields little bitsy gains at a time like walking the backbone?
You make a good suggestion but I'm afraid it wouldn't help.
Imagine going down 1000 points when you try a major rebuilding of a section?
You go down 1000 points.
You rebuild.
You go up 700 points because of that exciting new work you did.
But it is not a new high. :( All is lost even if you save. When you hit best score button. All your good work goes away and you have to start again.
I'll give a stab at suggesting new strategies. Your idea about using a wire structure while turning off calculations seems like something in the right direction. But I don't see how it could be very useful if it doesn't do any calculations. You know how these things just fly apart when something doesn't fit well.
I'm not sure you understand the interim "best" and disagree that it results in the problem you describe. in fact it was envisioned to assist in avoiding that situation. And AFAIK, from other feedback I've received, it is already being used to that purpose. The only major compalint I've heard is that tsome players don't like the hotkeys used.
Further…If you choose to do something that forces the puzzle score to a low level, you have likely changed the entire protein, although you may not think so. The lost points are often not just in the area you work, but also in residues at the farthest dimensional point from that area. So a cut and paste approach (am I seeing what you're talking about?) isn't going to work. Free energy (score reduction) is not injected into the protein at only the point worked, but often in each and every residue…check and you'll see… incremental scores for many or all of the residues can be negatively impacted by major rebuilds.not just the localized structures thru the process of equilibrium (equilibration?) during global wiggles subsequent to the "Rebuild".
Intermediate saves using recent best should maintain the scoring so that hitting restore recent best calls the value, UNLESS you make the mistake of restoring the global or "Very best" solution, which by the fundamental nature of the compare/replace functions used for both VERY best and recent best require that replacement, or if the value is exceeded by work subsequent to setting the baseline point. It was never meant to act as CTRL-SHIFT 1/2/3
If you choose to work an area in which you want to save the low score states regardless of their value wrt the the highscore, ctrl-shift 1/2/3 were designed for the very purpose.
if you want to work from a ctrl 1/2/3 state, then set the recent best marker from that location…ie, recall the location using ctrl 1, 2, or 3 and set recent best. All subsequent calls using restore recent best will be to that value or the value automatically replacing its initial value when it is exceeded by your work, whether that is by incremental score increases or by recalling the VERY BEST score.
And to the best of my knowledge, the recent best value isn't deleted during a file save operation any more than it is during a file load. If so, that is a problem/bug.
It is only when a score exceeds the recent best set point that it's value is overwritten.
Recent best is like an allen key screwdriver…not a multitool. As are
most. Like programs…No one program can do it all. The wiki has a
description, albeit primitive, of how to use the recent best tool.
please read it if you have time. It somewhat spells out what it does by
example. If you sitll find it confusing, I'll try to revamp the entry
to be more palatable.
I guess am unequipped to address the fundamental question. Only to agree with it's basic premise that methods are influenced by toolsets…it's a no-brainer…
And of course attempt to help clarify tools that may have been mis-interpretted by players who are simply using a new feature for which they have no historical background (the topic of a secondary restore best point has been ongoing for over six months since I first proposed it, but you were not hereto benefit from those previous explanations) Perhaps someone else can better explain it to you if I have been unsuccessful. It has limits but it has strengths too.
