This issue is probably caused by the beginner puzzles being weighed too heavily in score. The intent with having the <150 and <15 puzzles available is to give new players a chance to compete against their newer peers, and not to give any long lasting advantage. At the same time, weighing them less would make it harder for these newer people to get out of the <150 and <15 categories. This may not be so much of an issue given that these puzzles are up for so long, and that often times a new player will compete any many other puzzles before their first beginner puzzle closes. The solution which I think makes the most sense is for the scores between 15/150/unlimited to be limited to your score for the version which would have given you the most points.
Well that may have been your intent.
Not very well thought out in that case.
The reality is, all you are doing is lifting new players up ..and then kicking them in the teeth.
Unless you have actually played and been on the "receiving" end, then one has no idea just what this phony ranking opportunity does to new players.
Of course noone really knew it was "phoney" until you just enlightened us
Not so much of an issue?..sorry I do not wish to be rude but again unless you have experienced this personally…then you really have very little idea of the effect upon players and ramifications.
Up until the other day I would also have shared many of the viewpoints shared by people who have not had the dubious pleasure of experiencing it…how fortunate that I was.( sarcasm)
Now I understand how crap… new players feel.
Now I understand how they can play their little hearts out…then sink into the abyss never to be heard of again.
Instead of reading posts by veteran players..why not go listen to a few noobs and see how they feel about it?
Some wont post here because they dont want to get "shot down" by ^^^^^^^^^^
No doubt this post will get the "natives" riled up..but seriously…not one of you has a clue as to what these "ideas" do to new players.
Tea .
You have said that: ''I think the scores should be done at the end of each puzzle..its the only way to have an accurate scoring system and ranking system. Monthly at the longest.''
Perhaps you would fleshout what you mean by that - only the score of the last puzzle gives you rank? Scores are already calculated at the end of each puzzle.
Or do you want the scores to start and be totalled from when you started 3 years ago? so no new players can actually compete against the active older players even if their scores seem to go up gradually.
I'm sure everyone would like to hear from the actual new players who are unhappy, and of course the ones who are just fine with it all; as madde says no one should be voted down for providing factual information.
Returning players with the same or different names have a major advantage if they are able to include <15 and < 150 points in their totals so one would understand that they would be upset about apparently loosing those points.
Spmm,
I have already provided my suggestions and ideas to the people who are able to consider and implement a more equitable regime that is based on reality, as have others.
also my understanding is that global scores have to be calculated manually, decreasing the frequency from 4 months to monthly, even staying with the same system, would be drawing valuable resources away from other things of higher priority. Having a longer window would probably suit fold central better but can really disadvantages players.
Scoring is quite capable of being automated if that is your concern
well tea/vixy - not that I wish to be rude of course - if you have a fast track to the movers and shakers don't waste our time in the publicly available channel of foldit feedback, just get them to do your bidding when you throw a tantrum.
Please don't keep playing the hysterical ''the newbies'are upset'' to jflat and other developers until you can actually produce some newbies who are not returning players and are not ínstant newbies. Those comments are very rude in my opinion although the devs can look after themselves of course.
Don't worry about the rest of the players or actually providing any real or articulated solution to a problem which it seems is only of concern to you. The conversation had been quite interesting and pleasant until your hysterical comments.
Obviously anything can be automated but why would we bother when there is so much else that needs doing and you are the only person with a problem?
Why not make the ranking system a weighted one?
Scores < 2 month count 100%
Scores 2-4 month count 50%
Scores 4-6 month count 25%
This way the scoredrops will not be that heavy for newbies and can be compensated if their skills increase.
I agree with Mimi; chasing Global rank with scripting seems to discourage exploring the puzzles. Now my knowledge of biology is non-existent so maybe exploring wildly may not be productive. One of the things that happens is as soon as someone finds a productive alignment everyone in a group jumps on it. As for evolving, most people do not evolve to move a solution but to get 'evolver' global points.
As for newer players; this is a hard game. Once they get out of >15 and >150 their global rank is going to fall unless they are one of the few brilliant players. Timo's suggestion does address this.
Personally I ignore my rankings I play for my group's [which I would love to rename to TEAM] ranking.
I know for solo players this isnt possible; but I wanted to make clear how I play and think so my comments make sense.
I think Infjamc's ideas address these problems a bit.
I like Timo and Infjamc's ideas:
Timo:
Why not make the ranking system a weighted one?
Scores < 2 month count 100%
Scores 2-4 month count 50%
Scores 4-6 month count 25%
This way the scoredrops will not be that heavy for newbies and can be compensated if their skills increase.
Infjanc:
-
For CASP puzzles, one possibility is to calculate global points based on deviation from the native in terms of GDT_TS or some other metric. The problem with this approach is that it requires manual recalculation on the part of the Foldit staff (since only the top Foldit models are submitted to CASP); plus, it obviously doesn't work for puzzles where there is no native to compare to.
-
Yet another possibility is to create a new achievement type for individuals whose results represent significant contributions to a study that ultimately results in a published journal article. (Obviously, "significant" is subjective, so this will have to be awarded manually by the researchers.) For extra visibility, perhaps the player could be allowed to be adorned with a star next to their username (just like the ribbon for admins). The idea is that there would be a tangible reward for actually "doing something."
I get it -
Vixxyn started over with a new account after her last "leaving", and just after 4 months later has had all her <15 and <150 scores fall off. This whole rant is personal, and of her own creation.
