Metaverse Scoring bug fixed

Cool. Will it correct itself and unlopp those that were lopped or will it just prevent more lopping in the future?

Now if we can get that cap removed so I can get back to total milking. LOL

It totally corrects itself.

Thank you very much Frogboy.

I only see the correction in the profile score. I take it the score posted in the individual high score table wasn't broken?

Excellent, that is great.

Wow. I wasn't suffering this problem, but I am still glad regardless. More competition.

Yet somehow I've dropped to *14* games when I checked. I don't think the 'lopping bug' is at all what we've been griping about but something we hadn't even noticed yet.

I think you have to submit a game for the fix to go into effect.

Or at the next recalc I would assume.

Code Monkey, after I submitted I got back about 10 games. So something fixed something. also my score in my profile now matches the score on the individual high score table.

my score actually dropped.. twice this month.. (first time was due to no games in second block) I duno why it dropped the second time...

But as has been stated at least now my scores in playerstats match (bar 1 probably due to rounding) with the top player score screen

I spent much of April trying to rack up enough games to reach 30 and attain admiral rank, and after returning from a week away from home I find that this fix has recaptured some of my old games and catapulted me over the bar. Whoo-hoo! Thanks.

~SDC~

The last 5 games I have submitted has caused my score to go above then below 950K alternatively.

My guess is this should not happen :notsure:

Hmmm...I'd like to see the game count fixed as well. I've played three games and still show 100 games.

Well, fixing the count would be real nice as I stated in CM's old post relating to this, but I have mixed feelings on the score cap. It does prevent people playing maso from trying to milk the system for all it is worth so we don't have players trying to wring every drop out of the game when they know once they reach 60,000 they cannot go for 70K, 80K, or whatever the non-capped limit would be. Afterall, one 60K is as good as another. Now we just have non-maso players trying to milk the system for all it is worth with 60K crip games.

But the current cap also leads to a good deal of stagnation in the Meta, as my last few Difficulty Reports have been illustrating. The high end of the pack is basically how many 60K games one can throw on the pile. That is a bit boring, but I also have to think what a nightmare unrestricted scoring maso would be. So with people finding a way to get 60K on crippling (which was a much lower scoring level pre-AP, but I did think back when that the maso scoring spike was way too big compared to other levels), maybe the cap needs to be raised a bit. If the cycle of score inflation is destined to continue (I just wish it wouldn't, but I have been saying that since version 1.03 way back when nearly a year ago), maybe make the maso gold standard a 100,000.

in my latest game submit, i lost 40k points.... um... what???

edit: went from rank 19 to 23rd
[Message Edited]

ok that was very strange, i submitted another game and got back about 10k, but the 40k drop was very random. Donno what happened....

Probably got a block shift to where you have no games in that block.

yeah, thats the thing, i was just looking through my history, and all my games on the 20th do not add up to my point loss (i.e. there less). Not only that, but these games have been degrading over time already, so them dropping off the table shouldnt have hit me so hard.

You do have a hole between 10/14 and 2/14 that might have caused it. I am not sure if that would have been enough to cause it though.

Ok, lets looks what happened :
On the first submission:
block 0 (0-30 days): 11 60K games before the submission; 1 new 60K game but 1 left. So no variation on score
block 1 (31-60 days): 20 games for a raw total of 1170K. 1 60K games added so net score before submission was 248 539 K and after 254987. So 6.5K gained
block 2 (61-90 days): 2 games before (1 29K and 1 60K), only the 29K after. SO the score pass from 56 671 to 26 145 (30K loss)
block 3 (91 - 120 days): 2 games before for a raw score of 110K, one more 60K game after. So the score pass from 66K to 83K (17K gained)
no block 4
block 5 (151 - 220 days): 2 60K game before, only one after. So the score pass from 63K to 45K (18K loss)
block 6: 20 games for a raw total of 273K before, one 60K game more after. So the score pass from 43K to 51K (8K gained).

The total variation was : 6.5 - 30 +17 - 18 + 8 = -16.5 K
ok, it is a loss but not the 40K loss experienced (my formula could be wrong), but still a loss. And the explanation was to search in block where there are few games (block 2).

Since the formula for each block is :
raw total / squareroot (number of games in block ) =
average for block * squareroot(number of games in block), we see that everything that dramatically change the average of block or the square root in a block (like 1 game leaving when there are only 2) have an important impact on the score.

If a new game, scoring the average of a block is added in a block where there are already N games, the difference is :
average * squareroot(N+1) - average * squareroot(N)
= average * sqrt(N) * ( sqrt ( 1 +1/N) - 1)
approx avearge * sqrt(N) ( 1 -2/N - 1) = a
average / (2 * sqrt(N)).

So in the same day, adding a 60K in a block where there is already 11 60K games (case of the second submisison): 60K/(2*sqrt(11)) = 9K gained.

Hope this is a little clearer.

The Diplomats http://diplomats.galciv.org/ - Active! ~ Not Reactive!
[Message Edited]

Peace Phoenix,
That was a great analysis. If your formulation is correct, can we get Stardock to verify it? Can we also put such an analysis on the Altaverse so that such an analysis is done automatically for an individual? Or, can one put up a separate site that dynamically does the calculation?

There should be no mystery on how the score is derived - that should not be part of the game (the mystery, that is)

I agree I would like someone to verify it.

My latest game lost me 7K, in fact I am losing points every second game.

3K, 5K and now 7k, I would like verification that if this is supposed to occur. Seems more like a bug to me though.

ok, lets's see what I have with Jackey Jackey score:
I take only the latest submission:
block 0 : 44 60K games before, 45 after. Gain: 4.5K
block 1 : 2 60K games before, 1 after. loss: 23.5K
block 2 : 1 60K game as entered the block and one have left: no gain and no loss.
block 3 : 1 60K game entered a block, 1 39K left and 16 games for a raw score of 667K didn't move. gain: 4.5K
block 4: 1 39K game enter a block, 13 games for 360K don't move. gain: 5.5K
No movement in other block
total : 4.5 - 23.5 + 4.5 + 5.5 = 14.5 - 23.5 = -9 K

Not exactly 7K, but close. And the explanation is in the fact that one block with 2 60K see a loss of 1 60K game. And this lead to loss that isn't compensate by other movement. This is due to the fact that nothing was submitted between 3/24/2004 and 4/24/2004. A whole month. So it has effect when games leaves the block without being remplaced in the same block.

What you describe correspond to this: the first submission in the day see a loss due to a block seeing block leaving without being remplaced. And as there is less and less games left, the loss the greater. The others submission in the day affect only the block 0, so you see an increase.

So it doesn't appear to be bug but a curious behavior linked to the fact that you have one whole month without submission.

On brighter side, if you let some time to the time, like posting only a 60K game the 31th of may, you will experience a very nice boost (near 90K).
If you submit a 60K game each day to the 31, you will endup with a 130K boost from today score. The moving of games between block is really a killer thing if there is too much discontinuity in the submission rate.
[Message Edited]

I don't know if raising the cap is the right thing to do. Part of the reason that I choose to play at crip is due to Gerakken's reports that the top 50/100 was becomming all maso. I have seen comments made by others that playing the meta is pointless because to do so, you have to be a 60K maso cranker. I wanted to disprove the theory, or at least be the exception. By raising the cap on maso, won't this just accelerate the "play maso or get left behind" trend and convince more players to leave?

What about this? Many players play Gig/Huge/Large because they yield more points due to size, but play rare so they don't have to take on more than a few planets. What if the scoring variance was reduced for size, but modified for number of yellow stars in the game? Med or Large Abundant is probably as tough if not tougher than Gig Rare.

Oh, and as to "milking", the only thing I consistantly do to increase my score is make sure that I play it out to 2190. The other items together make less than a 5K difference for my games (small crip abundant), so I rarly bother much. I would be happy to see the 1/2 credit for short game hose go away, but I suppose someone would find a way to abuse that too.