Adjustments to Scoring System Ahead of Going Mainstream?

Feedback Feature Suggestions
1

Had a recent conversation in chat about scoring system, and I believe we should solicit input on this from the entire community.

Ideas raised so far include:

  1. Resetting all scores to zero at mainstream launch so that beginners won’t start off in the hole.

  2. instituting a score “window” where scores would be computed by some formula (to be devised), and where old scores would drop off after a time. (this is roughly similar to Fold-It scoring system)

  3. Instituting “Degrees” of how good a solution is instead of just complete or not complete (i.e. extra points for “better” solution - less G-C pairs, more, G-U pairs, lower free energy, etc.)

I wonder what other ideas are out there in the community, and what reasons other players may think of to either recommend or to eliminate some particular scoring system change idea.

This discussion could result in a major change in the game, and have a major impact on the competitive aspects. Hopefully all or most all players will weigh-in with their thoughts on this matter.

Best Regards,

-d9

2

to 1) As long as old puzzles are still playable, I don’t see the point of resetting them. New (good) players can solve them all in a couple of days or weeks and be in the top 10. Old players would just need to repeat their solutions, that’d be pretty boring. In case of dismissed puzzles you’re of course right.

to 2) For challenges: No (except dismissed puzzles) - For RNA Lab: Yes, maybe only the last 10 or 20 rounds count.

to 3) Yes, but I’d like it in addition rather than instead.

3

Just to throw into the mix as food for thought: here is a an example of a scoring/ranking formula: (This is from the Fold-It FAQ) - something similar may work for EteRNA, but may require prior institution of “scoring by degree” of success rather than simple complete/not complete…

Q: What are “global points”?
A: When a puzzle closes, the players will be assigned global points based on their rank in the puzzle. The points you receive for a puzzle will be added to your current global point total. Your global point total will determine your overall rank on the site. Each puzzle is worth up to 100 points, the current formula is:

Points = Max(1, RoundUp( 1 - (Rank - 1)/(NumPlayers - 1) )^7 ) * 100)

4

I was trying to imagine what the the game might be like if “Degree of Sucess” scoring, or “Quality of Solution” scoring, were to be implemented. I came up with the following, so far:

Since players would receive a higher or lower score based on how well they had solved the puzzle beyond just finishing with constraints met… I thought this might result in the following possible effects;

+) It might spark competition at all levels by providing scoring incentives to seek better and better solutions; in other words, instead of receiving a blanket 100 to 1000 points just for finishing a puzzle within certain constraints minimally met, there could be multiple score levels possible in any one puzzle depending on level of constraints met with possible bonus points awarded for exceeding constraint requirements by differing amounts. Competition could then be enhanced by not just counting what score level and rank one had attained in the overall game, but what score level one had achieved against other competitors in each individual puzzle.

+) Instead of publishing 4 or 5 different levels for each puzzle, developers could publish only one, which would then be worth varying point rewards for players satisfying different constraint level parameters levels or optional bonus achievement levels within the puzzle.

+) So, rather than “clearing” a certain level of a puzzle, a player could continue to work a solution until satisfied with the result, -or - upon seeing that another player had exceed his score, re-attempt a better solution later to increase his own score. In this way, players would push each other to find better and better solutions, until finally, none better was possible.

+) This increased level of competitiveness could also provide players the incentive to hone their skills and knowledge to greater levels.

+) This, in turn, could result in all players achieving better and better results in Lab Competition.

All speculation, I know, but I found all this very interesting to think about, and I both hope and believe that some other players and/or developers may have even better ideas or revisions to add.

This is such a unique opportunity (to be in on the beta testing) and not just play and enjoy the game, but also to help evolve and shape the game, that I really hope others become more involved in this evolving and shaping aspect.

5

I was trying to imagine what the the game might be like if “Degree of Sucess” scoring, or “Quality of Solution” scoring, were to be implemented. I came up with the following, so far:

Since players would receive a higher or lower score based on how _ well _ they had solved the puzzle beyond just finishing with constraints met… I thought this might result in the following possible effects;

+) It might spark competition at all levels by providing scoring incentives to seek better and better solutions; in other words, instead of receiving a blanket 100 to 1000 points just for finishing a puzzle within certain constraints minimally met, there could be multiple score levels possible in any one puzzle depending on _ level of _ constraints met with possible bonus points awarded for exceeding constraint requirements by differing amounts. Competition could then be enhanced by not just counting what score level and rank one had attained in the overall game, but what score level one had achieved against other competitors in each individual puzzle.

+) Instead of publishing 4 or 5 different levels for each puzzle, developers could publish only one, which would then be worth varying point rewards for players satisfying different constraint level parameters levels or optional bonus achievement levels within the puzzle.

+) So, rather than “clearing” a certain level of a puzzle, a player could continue to work a solution until satisfied with the result, -or - upon seeing that another player had exceed his score, re-attempt a better solution later to increase his own score. In this way, players could push each other to find better and better solutions, until finally, none better was possible, or until each player had pressed his or her ability to the maximum…

+) This increased level of competitiveness could also provide players the incentive to hone their skills and knowledge to greater levels.

+) This, in turn, could result in all players achieving better and better results in Lab Competition; the ultimate goal of EteRNA.

All speculation, I know, but I found all this very interesting to think about, and I both hope and believe that some other players and/or developers may have even better ideas or revisions to add.

This is such a unique opportunity (to be in on the beta testing) and not just play and enjoy the game, but also to help evolve and shape the game, that I really hope others become more involved in this evolving and shaping aspect.

-Best Regards,

-d9

6

Great Ideas!
This sort of thing is actually already in the works by the development team.