Date QScore bug?

[WastinTime]

Seems like a qscore bug in #18695 (Epic, Diplo, Deity)
It's a very good game by Misotu and it's score is .001 ?

#18694 seems wrong too.

Fixing the bug could cause an interesting ripple effect on total scores unless the bug only affects a few games.

 

[Firmlife]

Seems to me to be working as intended. Games aren't given a score based on how good they are. They're given a score relative to the average score of that type of game and the best score. Only the best game from any one player counts.

So in the case you cite, there are four games from two players, only the top two count, and the average score and the best score are very close. This gives a game even a little bit below the average a very bad score, and the second game from a player must almost by necessity be relatively far away from the average, since the average is calculated based on both player's best games.

I don't like this system. I think that the number of games that other games get weighed against is much too small, especially at higher levels and for larger maps. I think there's a lot of opportunity for someone who plays under two accounts to game the system. But it IS designed that way.

 

[WastinTime]

Seems to me to be working as intended. Games aren't given a score based on how good they are. They're given a score relative to the average score of that type of game and the best score. Only the best game from any one player counts.

So in the case you cite, there are four games from two players, only the top two count, and the average score and the best score are very close. This gives a game even a little bit below the average a very bad score, and the second game from a player must almost by necessity be relatively far away from the average, since the average is calculated based on both player's best games.

I don't like this system. I think that the number of games that other games get weighed against is much too small, especially at higher levels and for larger maps. I think there's a lot of opportunity for someone who plays under two accounts to game the system. But it IS designed that way.

I still think there is something wrong in this case:

1 WastinTime 1304 AD Huge Deity Diplomatic Epic Ancient
2 Misotu 1325 AD Huge Deity Diplomatic Epic Ancient
3 Misotu 1375 AD Huge Deity Diplomatic Epic Ancient
4 WastinTime Jul 2010 AD Huge Deity Diplomatic Epic Future

Especially since there is a really really bad game (Jul 2010 AD) which should bring down the average.
and the 2nd and 3rd are very close to #1 (but score 9pts and 0pts respectively).

Compare that to the quick speed, same table:

1 WastinTime 1250 AD Huge Deity Diplomatic Quick Ancient
2 Misotu 1710 AD Huge Deity Diplomatic Quick Renaissance
3 Misotu 1730 AD Huge Deity Diplomatic Quick Renaissance
4 Bram 1750 AD Huge Deity Diplomatic Quick Renaissance

This one appears to work. 2nd and 3rd place are not very good, very close to last place, but still get ~25 points (instead of .001 in the first example)

Even Bram gets 22 points.

 

[Firmlife]

Especially since there is a really really bad game (Jul 2010 AD) which should bring down the average.

No:

Only the best game from any one player counts.

Therefore, for the Epic slot, fastest is 1304 and average is (1304+1325/2 =) 1314.5 and the difference is 10.5 years. The 1375 finish is essentially six differences lower than the average.

For the Quick slot, fastest is 1250 and average is 1570, for a difference of 320 years. The 1750 game isn't even a whole difference away from 1750. In essence, that 1750 game is considered more than six times better than the 1375 Epic game.

As I said, the system is wide open for multi-account abuse. It is well set up to guard against single-account abuse. But in slots where there are a bunch of close, good, games it gives absolutely ridiculous results.

 

[WastinTime]

Thx for the explanation. I thought I knew how it worked, but now I see a little more clearly.