@ spmm & Brick
Shame on both of you for taking this to a personal level.
spmm - the words "tantrum" and "hysterical" are out of line, emotionally laden words. There was no reason to use those.
Brick - your entire comment is incendiary, unnecessary, and one of the rudest personal attacks I've ever seen here.
To both of you: please take the time to read all of the comments… This is not about tealight! Because she is a returning folder, she has been brave enough to say what happened to her and how she feels about it.
You have both missed the fact that Brow42 (a good player and an up & coming good scripter) has commented that he also was adversely affected in the recalculation in a big way. Trying to make this personal against tealight negates his voice, and certainly doesn't encourage any other newer players to engage in this conversation.
I started this feedback because I became aware, the first day after the recalculation, that there were more than a few newer players who had had a very ugly surprise. I am concerned that some of those players will leave. And no, they do NOT wish to be publicly identified - they feel bad enough about it without subjecting themselves to vets who may personally attack them.
SPMM your comments directed at me are totally out of line..just because I will not engage with you.
Your past behaviour in my inbox is why I will not engage with you.
Given The crap from you lot I have recieved, regarding what is an issue for new players why on earth would I waste my energy or time discussing anything with you.
It is also this behaviour you lot are exhibiting, that has prevented some new players from participating in this chat.
Hysterical?..No. What planet are you on?
Brutally honest yes..but then as you found out in my inbox some time back..you dont like that do you.
Actually brick I left last time due to the people like you who are total and utter jerks.
I came back after some chats with friends I made on here…only this time I wont take rubbish ..from anyone.
I guess some of you lot are not used to that…well get used to it.
I can understand your feeling threatened by a change to the system that is unfair to new players but protects you…but foldit doesnt really need the old players who contribute diddly squat except to be a totally negative force concerned only with themselves..people like you.
You help noone you offer nothing positive except to deride and attack others.
They need the new blood like the people who leave.
I left in September, I came back in October.
It had nothing to do with getting a rank.
If your inane and pathetic attack makes you feel fulfilled..go for it I am more than up for it
I'd like to offer my perspective on this issue.
-
When I first joined Foldit back in 2009, I didn't really experience a sudden drop in ranking due to the expiration of old scores myself. But that's partly because I picked up protein folding very quickly– after achieving several top 10 finishes in a few <15 and <150 puzzles, I somehow managed to maintain an average of 47 points per puzzle over the next four months. As a result, I was in the Top 25 in no time and had no reason to complain. (In fact, I was surprised at how well I was doing.)
-
But even then, I'm not immune to the issue of sudden rank drops either, as hot streaks and cold streaks can still occur from time to time. In my case, the difference could be as large as an average of 30 points per puzzle in one month and 60 points per puzzle in another– which would extrapolate to a difference of 46 places in the current soloist rankings (#15 vs. #61) if sustained over a 4-month period.
.
==> Now, I know that I am not the best example. But I can still sympathize with newer players who are hit by ranking drops, as the line of reasoning goes like this: "If even a top-25 player like me can be surprised by being dropped 10 places in the soloist rankings from time to time, then I can only imagine how much newer players would be devastated by their <15 and <150 scores expiring."
This is exactly why I don't think that simply removing "double/triple counting" in puzzles with <15 and <150 versions is enough (even though it's a good idea). Why? Because the net effect will most likely to be minimal. I'll use myself as an example– below are the number of points that I received from the <15, <150, and regular versions of my first six Foldit puzzles:
- 126: 4 / 1 / 4
- 128: 1 / 1 / 33 (yes, the high score was achieved on the "regular" version…)
- 129: 84 / 1 / 1
- 130: 39 / 1 / 1
- 131: NA / 66 / 1
- 132: NA / 100 / 4
In my case, counting only the highest score out of the three versions would only have dropped the total number of global points earned from these six puzzles from 342 to 326. So, if a new player manages to replicate this kind of performance in the <15 and <150 puzzles but can't find immediate success in the "regular" versions of the puzzles like a did, a rude awakening awaits them in four months:
Estimated global points after four months (53 puzzles): 326 + 447 = 514, rank = #179
Estimated global points after the <15 and <150 scores expire: 453 = 212, rank = #330
.
When the rank is already a large number, seeing that number double can be devastating. This is why I came up with the idea of lowering the exponent in the score calculations, so that the gap between a top-ten finish in the first few <15 and <150 puzzles and an average finish in the subsequent puzzles isn't as large. In addition, I think the FAQ needs to make it clear that all scores expire after 4 months.
This isn't an issue that people should be taking personal in any way.
I can appreciate that you are more personally affected by this than other people, and that it feels as though new players are being singled out, but that isn't the case.
While it is important for me to understand how "people feel about it", just understanding that people are upset isn't all that helpful. I'm more interested in understanding why they are upset, and what possible solutions we could implement in order to resolve the issue. That is the purpose of the discussion going on in this thread.
Now, you may feel that this setup lacked foresight on our part. However, things have been structured this way for quite a while, without people reacting this way before. The setup isn't entirely unreasonable, but I agree that it has flaws, which we will attempt to address. But we need to address it in a way that wont just end up causing more problems down the road. That's why we're having this discussion.
I feel as though this thread has become more personal than helpful, so I'm locking this feedback. I realize that some of you may have additional comments on this topic, and if you feel so inclined, you can send me a PM. Thank you for your feedback and proposed solutions - we're considering the options and should implement something soon.
