1105: De-novo Freestyle 52: Hand-folding Round

Closed since over 10 years ago

Summary

• Created: June 24, 2015
• Expires: July 01, 2015 at 23:00 UTC
• Max points: 100

Description

In this de-novo freestyle puzzle, only GUI scripts are allowed and sharing has been disabled. After this puzzle expires, the puzzle will be reposted with LUA scripts and sharing enabled. The PSIPRED secondary structure predictions are provided on the starting model.

Top groups

• 1. Beta Folders 100 pts. 9,487
• 2. Void Crushers 78 pts. 9,380
• 3. Contenders 60 pts. 9,378
• 4. Anthropic Dreams 45 pts. 9,308
• 5. Gargleblasters 33 pts. 9,267
• 6. Go Science 24 pts. 9,072
• 7. Deleted group pts. 9,067
• 8. L'Alliance Francophone 12 pts. 8,816
• 9. FoldIt@Netherlands 8 pts. 8,629
• 10. Natural Abilities 6 pts. 8,084

Top soloists

• 1. smilingone 100 pts. 9,487
• 2. Timo van der Laan 98 pts. 9,380
• 3. dembones 96 pts. 9,378
• 4. bertro 94 pts. 9,351
• 5. retiredmichael 92 pts. 9,338
• 6. Susume 89 pts. 9,308
• 7. Enzyme 87 pts. 9,304
• 8. johnmitch 85 pts. 9,290
• 9. actiasluna 83 pts. 9,267
• 10. BitSpawn 81 pts. 9,237

Comments

[Enzyme2]

It's been 9 days since the last real puzzle ended and we get a no LUA de-novo.

Recently many players have complained about the lack of puzzles where hand-folding is beneficial. But going from one extreme to another resolves nothing.

I can understand preventing players from running scripts constantly can help create a baseline, but the players who won't hand-fold a de-novo with LUA are still NOT going to hand-fold without it.

I can't speak for other players but I have several LUA analyzers which help determine incorrect structures. http://fold.it/portal/node/994823. Especially since the structure predictions given are usually incorrect. Try giving us predictions from multiple servers instead of making us gather the AA sequence by hand in order to google our own predictions.

I know I am hard to please, I constantly strive for perfection and it's hard for me to continue playing when I leave the game for years and then return to find one or two improvements while all the original problems remain plus a few more. And I am not alone this time, several players are upset with the recent puzzle selections given us.

No response is neccessary, but I would advise a few of your group, or trusted friends, play alongside us because I feel the disconnect between your scientific goals and the enjoyment of the players may be growing and there is no way for you really understand our frustrations if you do not experience them personally. Forget conflict of interest. I doubt any of the better players would be terribly upset if they are beaten by a developer, and many would enjoy the extra challenge.

[frood66]

on just one point made by Enzyme here.

Please, please, please can we have the sequence posted as a matter of course (where appropriate)
It would save a great deal of wasted folding time.

[inkycatz]

The balance is tricky, and we rely on hearing such well put and diplomatically phrased feedback to help keep that balance of "game" and "science" in proper perspective. I assure you - we are totally listening to all this feedback about puzzles, and it is a topic that we are already planning on working on. It's never a perfect process of course, so if we're all looking for a magic wand solution that will "make things super awesome all the time", I assure you that's probably not going to happen (there is always something, right?), and of course, these things will likely change over time (there are a lot of variables that go into puzzle selection, such as number of available puzzles at any one time/frequency/difficulty/size/availability of data/scientific goals). But we can get close, and posts like this are a start. It's always going to be a brilliant collaboration between what we can do here as a team, and the feedback we get (so the more we get, the more accurately we know what's on everyone's mind) - seriously, talk more about "puzzle balance". The forums are dying for that sort of thing that doesn't really fit in the "feedback" section (which should be used just for bugs, imo).

But before I go off topic I do want to add, when the balance skews heavily in one direction, we definitely need to know that, and I'm glad you spoke up. (Hearing what puzzles are enjoyable also can be helpful. :)

Thanks so much for the feedback!

[Already taken]

So…
Can you give the AA sequence?

[Timo van der Laan]

Just let us run lua scripts with shake, wiggle, idealize, remix and rebuild disabled. So any analyzing scripts or smart banding scripts can be used.

[actiasluna]

I agree that posting the sequence and allowing use of a limited number of scripts rather than no LUAs would be better. While it is very cool to be able to practice handfolding and master these skills, the time for a large deNovo puzzle is limited and many of us are playing only in our spare time so we haven't got a chance to reach a gratifying solution after spending hours fiddling with things that the "utility" LUAs can do quickly.

[retiredmichael]

one of the ways to figure out the aa's is to make the whole thing into a helix and then a sheet and look for sections that look good.
take some notes, and puzzle it through.
agree that it is a major time suck, and i always do a triple helix for score just in case

much prefer the 2nd round and publishing the aa's seems like a simple thing to do