Conversely, if a team already has the high score for the puzzle, what good does it do anybody to have 15 or 20 team members all do the same evo to pack the top of the Evolver scoreboard? There is no new science there, it's merely repeating what has already been done.
The only possible reason for that is to push other people out of the top scoring range. That is the evil part. It's selfish, arrogant and unsportmanlike, and it shouldn't be allowed.
Wiki: "Teamwork is work performed by a team towards a common goal."
Well… because game rewarding players by points, score, and ranking our goal is make more points, get better score and rank. This is POINT if this GAME.
Very small number of players are real life scientist and can tell why this position is better than another. Rest of us have one gage: score.
I`ll be VERY happy if my worst scoring solution helps cure anything, but previous CASP results shows that in 99% better score = better solution -> more gain to SCIENCE.
We work on very SMALL objects, so even 1pt difference can be BIG difference.
IMO more better solutions (even close one to other) is better. But maybe s1 from foldit team will tell us :)
Rav3n_pl - I'm not saying TEAM scoring is bad, in fact I'm not even discussing TEAM scores.
This is about abuse of the Evolver scores, which really have NO USE and should be removed from the game.
Personally, I get great satisfaction from evolving my teammate's solutions. Some of them are so tight that it takes me a lot of effort to find those 2 points, and I learn a lot about structure from it. Evolution is taking a starting point (like wolf genetics) and branching off from that point (dogs in all their variety). If you're measuring success by something like compactness, you can start with a Great Dane, or you can start with a chihuahua. Maybe you can evolve something more compact from the Great Dane, but my bets are on working with the chihuahua. If the chihuahua turns out to be a dead end, and the Great Dane yields a more compact canine in the long run, it will show. The proof is in the poodle, I mean pudding.
I'm not in it for the science….I'm in it for the fun. . . .my teammates are FUN. Friendly, helpful, and ingenious. Sure, make it more difficult for us to score and we'll simply rally round and play by whatever rules. But for me it is NOT the score.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled protein.
Tyg
@ Brick - Team score IS highest evolver score, for goodness sakes… Is there something about that, that you cannot understand?
I think that your perception is colored by a former team member of ours who was on your team for a while - the concept of incremental jumping on an evo was largely his invention - and one of the main reasons he left - because the rest of us did not like it!! The argument was that we wanted all promising solos evoed by NOT simply walking the heck out of the first one at the top in the first 24 hours. Funny - we seem to agree on that, but you have a mindset here that no amount of reason can penetrate.
This is simply offensive & obnoxious:
"The only possible reason for that is to push other people out of the top scoring range. That is the evil part. It's selfish, arrogant and unsportmanlike, and it shouldn't be allowed."
It would seem that you'd like all the rest of us to get on board somehow to push up your rank, while you are being as nasty as possible.
Get a grip - it isn't going to happen, and no amount of whining is going to help you. Become a better folder - that's the only way here.
"Team score IS highest evolver score, for goodness sakes… "
This actually makes my point - the evolver scoreboard is redundant and not needed, and is subject to great abuse.
Re: B_2
While I don't entirely agree with your argument, I can see your point that large teams can have an advantage simply because they take up more places on the scoreboard. With that in mind, would you be in favor of the following alternative scoring system?
Current system:
Achieving 11th place out of 101 players in a 100-point puzzle gives you 100 * ( 1-(10/100) )^7 = 47.8 ==> 48 points.
.
.
New system:
The top-ranked player gets the maximum number of points as usual; this player's game score will be called s_max. Those below the 50th percentile will get a single point; the median score for this puzzle will be called s_min. For everyone else in between, the number of global points they will get will be calculated as follows:
(player_score - s_min) / (s_max - s_min) * points_for_this_puzzle
For example, suppose that s_max = 10000 and s_min = 8000, while the same 11th-placed player scored 9900 (say that he/she only got pushed back to 11th place because #1-10 are players from the same large team who easily reverse-engineered the team solution). Well, this player will now receive (9900-8000)/(10000-8000)*100 = 95 points as opposed to 48.
.
.
==> So why is the new system an improvement? It gives people an incentive to keep playing even if they cannot improve their ranking significantly.
Maybe if I say it a different way -
Team scores are meaningful and should be rewarded
Soloist scores are meaningful and should be rewarded
Evolver scores have no meaning and are NOT a measure of success, only a measure of a tiny incremental improvement to someone elses work. Maybe the solo originator of the evolved solution should get the credit!
A possible fix would be awarding evolver points based on the amount of score gain, but that could still be abused (just imagine someone uploading the starting configuration and having a teammate evolve that). I see a way to get around this, but it will complicate the scoring system even further:
Only count score increases above an arbitrary cutoff (say, the median score of the puzzle) into the equation.
Alternatively, the score gains could be weighted based on when it occurred. Improving a starting configuration that scores 8000 to 9000 is probably something that everyone could do via a shake followed by a wiggle, while improving 10400 to 10500 near the endgame is huge.
==> Possible implementation example:
Maximum score = 11000; Median score = 10000; Score of starting configuration = 8000
a) Evolving a 8000 solution to 9000: No credit
b) Evolving a 8000 solution to 10100: Credit is given for the last 100 points above 10000
c) Evolving a 10000 solution to 10500: full credit
As for how to convert these to evolver points:
(score_gain_above_cutoff) / (max_evolver_score - cutoff_score) * points_for_this_puzzle
a) 0 points
b) 100/1000 * 100 = 10 points
c) 500/1000 * 100 = 50 points
Oh, we're back talking about points and scores….okay
BUT
I have learned more about folding recently from taking each and every evo I can and doing as much as I can with it than I have in muddling about with my laughable solo efforts. And my team is to thank for it because they have taught me and TRIED to show me (I can be a bit slow to 'get it') and encouraged me. When a high percentage of our members are active we ROCK!
Tyg - AD and proud of it!