In my mind, counting “actions” and “turns” should both be simple. Actions are counted every time that the player either matches gems or casts a spell. Turns are counted every time that the AI passes the turn back to the player. No need to differentiate between any kind of gem matches.
2 Likes
yes, but what you are describing will not count a cast that makes extra turns, either from making matches on the board or from spell effects like goblins.
The cast needs to be counted, even if it makes an extra turn from gem matches on the board. The simple move counter that they are using will count them, at the expense of also counting the extra turns you take off the board with manual swiping to keep your opponent from getting them. These extra turns shouldn’t be counted against the player.
1 Like
So you’re asking for something in between my definition of “actions” and “turns”? I’m not sure if I understand what the benefit would be. What are the things that you actually want to count?
By counting “turns” the way I proposed, then any moves that the player makes to clear extra 4-matches, generate extra turns, etc. won’t count against them. I think a “good player”, by measure of efficiency, should get as much as possible done on their turn and not hand anything back to the AI unnecessarily.
3 Likes
The main issue is that we are coming from a GW with known formula to GW with unknown formula.
Players already did GW before, where we trained before doing our battles to maximize our GW points and now devs want us to do our battles freely without thinking about the points? Is it a joke?
Some of our players in our guild left it because they were ashamed of their score (even if don’t have rules about a minimal). And now we should not care about the score?
Why devs didn’t give any reply since Monday? Is their strategy to wait for old players stop raging?
And it’s a shame. We should know the probability. And some countries force devs to give the drop ratio…
But it seems to me that it’s the best way to be able for them to ninja-tweak the drop ratio without players could know…
As others already said, yes, we know it.
You know the points that you are going to do before doing the battle, so you don’t need the formula… With GW we want to know how to maximize the points during the battle because your actions will change the results.
Imagine that tomorrow you cannot see anymore how many points you can acquire from the 3 different opponents, and it will a similar situation that we are living GW.
Yeah and it’s not a success… Matchmaking has always been unsatisfying and with the 1-troop bug is not working anymore…
4 Likes
Yes, in between what we have and what you are proposing.
Perhaps an example: I cast Valk and make a 4 match and fill up a crimson bat. (1 action.)
there are 2 other 4+ matches on the board, I take them so my opponent doesn’t get them (0 actions)
I cast crimson bat (1 action)
The cast Valk cast needs to be counted. The manual swipes are plays good players would make but are currently being counted against them.
EDIT: The benefit would be to not reward players too much for doing something like an endless alchemist / hellcat loop. That each cast in the loop will be counted, without penalizing good play like keeping extra turns and the free mana away from your opponent.
Then they could just count every time you cast a spell plus the one gem match that returns the turn to your opponent? Would that work? I think it would be a nice compromise that would limit loop-spamming, but not punish players for collecting 4 and 5 matches that are on the board.
1 Like
Yes, that is exactly what i’m advocating for. Something just a little more complex than a simple move counter.
2 Likes
I think it’s very likely that the actual scoring algorithm changed when the post was edited to change the MAX to MIN. This explains the lower scores today, because yesterday we were all getting 4 times the percentage or higher, and today we are all getting less than 4 times the percentage.
5 Likes
MAX means that you don’t have a MAX value which is 4 here so enormous number of points should have been possible like 30k for one battle. For damage it’s easy to have a enormous ratio of damage dealt on damage taken.
The lower score today should be due to a tweak of the parameters 
.
2 Likes
True. It may have been a small tweak. Either way @Fourdottwoone should not feel that his estimate of yesterday’s parameters was off. I’m pretty sure his estimates were excellent. I am also pretty sure that the algorithm has changed since yesterday.
3 Likes
Most of our top players in Mean Machine has like 6500 - 7000 points in GW today. Yesterday it varied from 7300-8000+ pts. So the algorithm has probably changed a little.
4 Likes
Just to clarify, was that confirmation that changes had been made from the day 1 scoring method, or was that referring to the change from the old (2 weeks ago) scoring method?
1 Like
Didnt really say, but thinking it was changes as a whole
2 Likes
I thought they said they wouldn’t tweak the system mid-week. 
1 Like
Wasnt it an eror correction not a tweek?
2 Likes
Does everything have to be a sad face?
1 Like
I suspect the change last night was because of a bug or unintended consequence of how the new rules were originally implemented. A ninja edit because of something potentially game breaking. Otherwise, I suspect they would have let the week play out.
5 Likes
My new pet hate…Scoring well in gw only to realise your using an alt account. 
That better Eika 
3 Likes
Except for bugs and I firmly believe that their was a bug in the scoring. That the formula originally published was how it was and the ninja edit reflected the change too.
It’s just speculation but it fits how me and several people did worse when the computer had no turn. Why was nothing said? Cause the outrage would have been worse than it was with even more calls to invalidate the results.
6 Likes