Proposed change to "Overall" Category

Started by auntdeen

auntdeen Lv 1

We've always had players who are excellent, but prefer to focus on one puzzle at a time. With the NC, we have many players who are now more limited than they used to be with the number of clients that they can run.

I'd like to suggest a change to our current "overall" category (not the global rankings).

Instead of 40 out of 50, lowering the number to 20 out of 50 would make good sense for a few reasons.

First - it would allow some of our very best players to feel less time constraints when focusing on a good solution rather than trying to work on all puzzles (or 80% of them) at once.

Second - those who now can only run half the clients they used to can still be competitive.

Third - by allowing more freedom with this, it could be very beneficial for CASP by allowing players to really work on the puzzles they are excelling at without fear of dropping ranks by not opening every one.

Fourth - especially during vacation seasons, this allows players to relax a bit without the worry of dropping ranks

Fifth - a good number of our players either have physical issues, or do caregiving for family members with issues - this allows them a little more freedom to be competitive.

Sixth - this would also allow those who like to focus on evo rather than solo more freedom to pursue their strength without affecting their "overall" ranking.

Seventh - any returning vet can be competitive more quickly, encouraging them to stick around.

Last CASP season, we had 56 CASP puzzles and 14 others during the season (mid-May through mid-August). Reducing the 40 out of 50 to 20 out of 50 would make a major difference in everyone's stress level - and probably better results.

IMHO, this would be a relatively easy change for the devs to implement, and could make a whole lot of players a bit happier.

jflat06 Staff Lv 1

A lot of these reasons were the same reasons we had for making the category system to begin with. It's an open question what the best numbers for X out of Y are, and we're definitely open to feedback on this.

What do other people think?

Susume Lv 1

I'd also like to see 20-30 out of 50. 50 puzzles is about 3 months, except during CASP when it will likely be a little over 2 months. I would not want the window any shorter than that; just lower the number to count out of that window.

gitwut Lv 1

I don't think that the category rankings are terribly accurate anyhow, so I don't see any harm in experimenting further with the numbers.

Skippysk8s Lv 1

As a relative newbie who just hit her first "end game" situation in the last couple weeks, I have simultaneously started limiting the number of puzzles I play. I am trying to figure out better strategies and frameworks to improve my score. I have a fairly old desktop, so I can't do too many puzzles at one time if I want to run recipes. If both amateurs and experienced puzzle solvers would do better, the smaller number of puzzles in the ranking would be better.
The other alternative for those of us progressing would be an intermediate category. However, I think this would take away the sense of satisfaction of finally going from happy at a top 100 score to being happy at top 50. I also think it would be to hard to draw the line. I would rather compete over my head than always have a slam dunk, but that is me.
I don't know what CASP is outside of special competition – admit to ignoring that, so no opinion about CASP in particular.

spmm Lv 1

I don't see any value in changing this, it gives people with all the time in the world to play and good equipment an even bigger advantage.
At the moment people who play all the puzzles and do well get rewarded by rank, reducing the competition would reduce the value of the game surely?

people may see lower rank as a less competent player but we just have to live with that.
I often take breaks from folding for a variety of reasons and it annoys me to see my scores plummet, and to have to climb back up again, but that is the game.
it would be less annoying if there was a ladder that showed players who had made the top 15-20 in soloist. So even with an rank 3xxxx a good player would be visible there.
There is also not much incentive to get rank one solo when the evo player who put two points on the solution by walking it is the one listed in the puzzle history front page, not the soloist who spent days getting it there.
My $0.02

Timo van der Laan Lv 1

I would say for all categories, 70% of the counting number would be good.
The counting number should be reflecting the frequency of the category (with a minimum of 10).
The current counting number on the prediction category is too low, it should be something like 25 or 30.

These are my 2 cents.