Bruno Kestemont Lv 1
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).
