Lots of good data here. Let's see what we can do with it.
@Gnerphk,
> When first implemented, I wrote a scathing critique of the system for the Magazine
Link please. I'd like to read the article, and the responses. Perhaps there are some additional ideas there.
> Games counted should be the past ten to finish, not the ten finishes with the highest game number
Absolutely. The methods I suggest above guarantee that.
I don't know exactly how it's currently done, as I don't have access to the server-side code, but I suspect it involves a query to a DB and a summation or average of the results. This is much more time consuming than any aged average method (my suggestion), and, depending on the exact DB query, may not guarantee that the ordering is optimum for the desired result.
> Rescue bonus should be documented better. Indeed, the whole feature needs more documentation, as does the site itself (good God how it needs it), but this is the most glaring hole.
Joshua disagrees. A week or so ago, I sent him a message, volunteering my time to improve the documentation. He refused. I take that as a statement that he feels that the current level of documentation is adequate. I disagree with him, but we're playing with his toys in his sandbox, so ...
> Death, drop, and resignation should be tracked separately and credited separately. I'm open to changes here -- as long as they are consistently applied and well-documented.
Tracking them separately would be difficult. Scoring them separately could be done. I have no problem with this, but it makes the calculations more complex. One of the things I've learned in the decades I've spent writing code is that simpler is usually better. If we can track all three of these in a single value (called "Raw Tenacity" in the current implementation), it will be simpler, especially the aging portion of the code.
> We have a very involved and active developer
Based on this thread (http://planets.nu/#/activity/1637815), I'd have to disagree with that statement. Joshua appears to be running this game as a one-man-show, having no significant amount of support "staff" (volunteers of course), or other support structure. Before I could call him "involved and active", there would need to be adequate structure in place so that support doesn't stop when Joshua travels (work or vacation).
> I approve of an early turn submission bonus because it encourages early turn submission, which is the antithesis of forgetting to take one's turn... the which leads to drops.
I agree, but my reasons are slightly different. See below.
@Robodoc,
> I think subtracting 2 points for a missed turn is a bit extreme. That would result in about a 2.5% tenacity hit.
Perhaps, but it's also a strong indication of a lack of Tenacity on the part of the player missing a turn. Changing this to add 0 would, IMHO, cause the change to be too small to notice.
Perhaps having a first missed turn be -0, a second sequential missed turn be -1 and a third sequential missed turn be -2 would work. This is based on the fact that subsequent missed turns have a significantly greater impact on the overall game flow than a single missed turn.
@Snm,
Your supplied formula would decrease the amount of resignation penalty as the game progresses, starting at 10, and dropping to 0 between turn 25 and turn 75. This would foster the 'achievement point farming' problem that you claim to be trying to solve.
IMHO, if a player in the endgame resigns, they're creating a larger problem that someone who resigns after 30 turns.
> these changes would remove the bonus from finishing the turn early, which I frankly think was a mistake (as was the tenacity penalty of forgetting to mark the turn ready). Why? The bonus simply rewards bad playing. Not putting thought into making your turn, not attempting to coordinate with allies and leaving time for some diplomacy before finalizing ones turn. This part of tenacity rewards making hurried turns and penalizes taking your time thinking, communicating and learning.
If a player makes bad moves quickly, then they'll be penalized with a lower achievement score, which means that rank advancement will be slower. If a turn takes an hour to play well, then the only difference is whether they make time for the game soon after it turns, or try to fit it in whenever it fits. The first can be considered to be a higher level of tenacity than the second, which supports a Tenacity bonus.
This comment was also placed into your suggestion thread. |
Show Media Item - The purpose of this thread is to discuss the Tenacity...
