+1
Considering how hectic CASP will be, and that many players can run fewer clients than before NC, this would be a great idea for team players to be able to make a contribution even if they won't have the time to do a solo on a puzzle.
This should probably have been in a separate feedback, but I was in a hurry when I posted it.
Thanks for the +1 vote !
that's an easy one: if a player doesn't evolve a said number of different solutions, he gains nothing. a solution and all of its evolved forms counting for only one solution.
I can understand this idea….but I also shake my head a little.
The existing game layout seems workable to me. I'm more interested in the immediate target - CASP.
It seems to me that players are looking for something that is not currently there - and this disappoints me.
Looking at what we currently have - I would like to see properly operational group (and global) forums. New ways of playing aside…This may prove to be a more important weapon, that can be easily delivered, for our immediate task.
Change in evo play needs careful consideration - it will affect group play and competition. Is this really the time?
every little bit of fun we can get back is really worth it.
Indeed. The goal is to give pure soloists not belonging to a group the opportunity to experience evolution, or even the opportunity to players of low ranking teams to experience high evolution. jeffs's initial proposal starts from the fact that there is quite some inequity in the present evolvers system (To be an evolver, you must join a team. To be a top evolver, better you join a top team !).
Following your suggestions, I see 2 types of "services":
1-OR a group for all beginners who want to share their solution with any other player, in order to learn (arrangement can be made in global)
2-OR (another) group for top soloists and evolvers who want further improving a top soloist solution at end game.
Both group have the same kind of rule based on freedom, openness, neutrality (the administrator should be a non playing, non logging in, clone), self-discipline to leave the group asap etc.
I do not see any problem with group 1. Like there exists a global chat, this would be a global group.
For group 2, I do not see more risk of reducing the number of clusters than in current life with open group and public recipes. Group 2 could reduce the inequity mentioned above:Any pure soloist or any player from low ranking team can get some high evolvers experience visiting this group for a short period. But group 2 has a high potential of becoming top group if many top players share there. Would it endanger the concept of closed top teams (and "closed" lonesome soloists)?
Remark:
The sudden appearing of Soloists virtual group in top ranking for several puzzles like 880 suggests that this idea might be feasible without new dev. I found this appearing very funny (thanks johnmitch ! A new difficulty for the real teams, because the sum of best soloists has a high potential I think. The Soloists virtual group concept does not endanger the cluster problematic, but it does not solve our current question. A similar group "with share allowed" is thus needed, and feasible.
Knowing that no share can be transported from one group to the other, I think the current system is safe enough in order to avoid diminishing the desirable number of clusters.
I fully agree with this suggestion (may be it should be repeated elsewhere)
No share being transported from one group to another is the key. This means no protein can be seen by folders from other groups because the top folders can rebuild another protein by hand just by getting a single look at the protein. As long as this doesn't happen, then yes, I agree with you. I like the soloists virtual group btw.
from my perspective, its more about adding 1 more group that is a default for the people who aren't in other groups. the only difference is that the people in this group don't feel like they are in a group. they don't use group chat or make group scripts or have a team name. so, essentially their evoes would look like any other group's evo i'd imagine.
That remains a problem then. In current system, if I come from one group to another, I can see a share, load it from group 1, take pictures, leave the group, join group 2. There, it's impossible to share this solution. But I could show pictures to team members or use it myself as a guide (I think, not sure) for a new reset. This would be cheating. The only way to avoid it would be to recalling the Foldit Community rules:
-Any method of copying data from other players or external sources in order to increase your solo score is cheating
-Copying tertiary and/or quaternary structures from other players or third parties is forbidden.
Since this group would be characterized by (many) free and anonymous migrations (like potentially any open group actually), the following sentence could be added to the group rules:
"Conform to Foldit Community rules, no solution found in this group might be reproduced anywhere else by any means. In order to avoid cheating, delete all your shares before leaving the group".