New Score System (in General)
July 8 2008 11:22 AM EDT
First, it would be nice to know: is there a new scoring system in place, and is it going to remain?
Second, the current system seems a bit...off, in my opinion.
Hubbell should not be in second place. Pretty much not ever. I know people are probably using BA in varied fashions during a bonus experience/money day, but since high experience is over in 40 minutes, I assume a lot of people have used their BA.
My litmus test for a scoring system is comparing it to who can beat me. Four teams can beat me regularly. So, going one above and one below that, at BEST, my score should be from 5th to 3rd, double-taps and such notwithstanding (I have not hit second in score via double-tapping).
Someone like Edyit, who has only one or maybe two natural predators, should be third or fourth or so. He seems lower than that.
Like I said, maybe some people are still tweaking, or haven't used BA...not sure. But Hubbell's score seems too high on this new scheme. I haven't changed a thing in my strategy, not one thing (back to FB and SF)...
What do other people think?
July 8 2008 11:29 AM EDT
I dunno, you're only 60k score ahead of him. *shrug* probably needs more observation.
July 8 2008 11:31 AM EDT
My rewards shot up by 10% yesterday. I'm not complaining one bit *grin*.
Well, considering a few days ago my highest challenge bonus was 0%, I'm thinking I love the change. Plus, it's nice to be able to see your progress go up so rapidly.
July 8 2008 11:57 AM EDT
But if we all just keep going up, where does that end?
However, maybe this is meant as a dead-zone alleviator of sorts...
July 8 2008 11:58 AM EDT
And OB, I have been higher in rankings than I ever have been, consistently, for the past 2-3 days. Still anecdotal, but I am pretty sure something has changed, and I think whatever has changed mis-represents where Hubbell should be, anyway.
July 8 2008 12:03 PM EDT
Perhaps because his PR is higher than yours, he doesn't receive as much score for beating you? Or perhaps he's not fighting you enough? I don't honestly know, as I've done nothing to understand the new score system ;) all I know so far is that scores are above MPRs and that is a good thing!
July 8 2008 12:04 PM EDT
Give it time for scores for the entire top region to reach, then go a good couple of percents over PR values first - only afterwards we can say for sure wether it's just fine or somewhat bizzare.
remember too that score will never and should never be in line with mpr or else we would just use mpr.
score will be greatly affected by specialized strategies. the more total score points put into the game, the more obvious those affects will be. in effect score now is more an indication of how many people attack you regularly and how many of those are using specialized strategies that allow them to fight higher than normal as well as your susceptibility to said specialized strategies.
the other thing that will affect score more now, if the system stays in place, is those fighting and buying all of their ba will likely have higher scores than those who miss some, which is as it should be in my mind.
July 8 2008 12:53 PM EDT
That's exactly the reason I use the litmus of "how many people can beat me" as a good indicator at the top.
July 8 2008 12:58 PM EDT
Give it time to adjust, it's too early to analyze.
July 8 2008 12:58 PM EDT
Unfortunately one problem is the double tap thingy.
A few double taps can easily drain hundreds of thousands from your score.
Which makes score a poor indicator of anything.
aye, but if those hundreds of thousands can filter downwards and eliminate challenge bonus issues throughout the ranks especially since score means nothing to those in 6/20, then how is that a bad thing?
July 8 2008 1:27 PM EDT
I never stated it was a "bad" thing.
Just stating that score really means nothing. It is too labile and easily manipulated to signify much.
It is shocking that challenge bonus is based on it.
ah, the use of the word "unfortunately" then threw me, my apologies.
my main point though was just that it means nothing at the top but can mean everything down below and therefore if the new system helps those down lower then it is all good and that should be the yardstick by which the change is measured rather than its meaningfulness to the top 25 or so.
July 8 2008 2:29 PM EDT
But is it really meaningful when double taps can easily skew the scores?
I think scores really don't represent a teams effectiveness, period. There are some very specialized strategies that can absolutely devastate certain teams, and only those certain teams. That doesn't mean they are necessarily 'better' than others.
July 8 2008 3:31 PM EDT
Yes, but they will be devastated by other teams, and so they're score will also get drained. I'd say score is a pretty good indication of team effectiveness, if you take into account the character score over a longer period of time. Koy is number 1 in score for a long time, and there's no denying it is the most effective character.
"But is it really meaningful when double taps can easily skew the scores?"
what is it skewing it from? i thought score was meaningless in the 6/20 range. the double tap is actually crucial to allowing access to that score, and thus pumping their own, that wouldn't have access to it otherwise.
i guess before we decide if it is meaningless, we need to define scores role in the game. the only role i know of is to set challenge bonus for the not 6/20 crowd. trying to use it for anything else seems to go against the way the games mechanics are designed.
July 8 2008 4:35 PM EDT
Those in the 6 regeneration can get a positive CB, Just not a negative one.
while it is i guess technically possible, it is also unlikely unless you can fight naked and without a tattoo. that is until the scores go higher, it might be more doable soon. i am sure that some have gotten a bonus, while in the 6/20 range i never have gotten a positive challenge bonus. i would say that if they do it would probably be small.
i think it should be possible to set up a formula that would pretty much give us a score range that the top would need to be in for people to keep getting a challenge bonus more evenly throughout the game. i believe it should be possible though for people to get 100 percent challenge bonus throughout at least the 7/20 range or at least they shouldn't be hampered by a lack of score in upper targets from getting that.
if the top score isn't high enough, then the rest will not be either. basically the game mechanics need to at least allow that and i am not sure that they have been. maybe that is being fixed now and it should be the goal in my opinion not what we all think our score should or shouldn't be.
July 8 2008 5:17 PM EDT
From my point of view. I have not seen a 0% or positive challenge bonus in well.... forever, but because of the new score system I have 2 people on my list now that give me a 1% and a 0% challenge bonus and all my bonuses went to a low of -1% .. and before I was in the -4% to -5% range and slowly dropping lower and lower. For me this is a great change and will just keep watching till it levels out and see where it's at.
sox is a great example and i thought of using him earlier. game mechanics should allow for a high enough score in the game that someone like sox should be able to get a 100 percent challenge bonus. i would even go further and say that he should be able to do so fairly easily. with that said i would like to see scores go even higher baby!
if the n*b's need adjusted afterward in a downward fashion then so be it, but i think people might feel like they earned it more this way and hopefully never feel like they were butting their heads against "the wall".
July 8 2008 5:38 PM EDT
To just see a -2% challenge bonus on my fight list after months of -3% to -8% is something.I don't really care about the score. It does seem to fluctuate more now. If it helps eliminate the dead zone I'm all for it ;)
July 8 2008 5:47 PM EDT
There certainly are more 3M+ scores right now then I have ever seen.
I believe that 12 characters were the most ever.
With MPR/PR getting higher and higher, this is quite a welcome change.
July 8 2008 6:12 PM EDT
I've been getting positive challenge bonuses for the past day or so - as high as 4% this morning: which since I've reached the front page of the standings is pretty damn high. Whatever this change it's been for the better for me.
Regarding score: my view has always been that it is a snapshot of how you are performing at that very moment, nothing else, not yesterday or tomorrow. Just right now. So in that way score is very meaningful.
I think it is escalating too fast. My score seems to be ever-increasing at a faster rate then my MPR.
July 8 2008 7:07 PM EDT
Painkiller your score is lower than your PR. So if you look at it.... supposedly your char is worse than it should be because most people look at it as your score should be higher than your pr. This has not been the case in the top region for a long time. I think the scores will flatten out and find a good point. I hope mine ends up higher than my pr sooner or later.
You guys may want to check out this team:
Not a farm as far as I can tell. Just someone who stopped playing. And their score keeps on going up.
July 9 2008 5:11 AM EDT
Easy to explain: somebody is attacking them and drawing or losing. That'll increase their score.
July 9 2008 5:12 AM EDT
Heh yeah, well, of course it keeps going up, he's a SFBM :)
Even in the previous score system, when idling, I found myself coming back to higher scores than when I left due to people accidentally losing to me while looking for new targets (and then it meant I just found a new target "for free").
> What do other people think?
I hear a poll request!
woot for the semblance of democracy! ; )
July 9 2008 11:58 AM EDT
The new score system should have been in place like 3 months ago !!!
July 9 2008 12:04 PM EDT
(pssst Jon: don't get rid of the double tap, whatever you do!!!)
July 9 2008 12:20 PM EDT
Would a poll explain in more detail exactly what the new score system _is_? Not sure I can vote on something just based on anecdotal, gut-feel information....?
well, i don't really want you (that is, CB collectively) voting on which formula you like better. i don't think you're any better at judging formulae than i am. :)
IMO the better question is, are the *results* better?
July 9 2008 1:17 PM EDT
Hm, I guess my mind has trouble with that without having some idea where the results _might go_.
But you are correct, if you are certain all the standard things are in effect (scores won't wheel out of control, etc.) then I guess the overall "feel" is what matters.
I think we'll need more time to determine that, though, in lieu of any other explanation.... And I still do not think the results are "accurate" if Hubbell can, at any time, touch second place. *smile*
July 9 2008 1:19 PM EDT
...though that appears to have leveled off... We'll see how high I fly after 4 PM...
I expect scores will re-stabilize, yes.
It is starting look look as though I may have actually pushed average scores up a bit too far. I'll give it the rest of the week and re-evaluate.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002U1h">New Score System</a>