I needed 21 points to match a score today, so I checked and the easy game scoring and it's score divided by 12. 21*12 = 252 points, so I get a score of 252 on the easy game and... am given 25 points. When did this happen?

Even more, the game is saying that (at the moment) I'm due to be awarded 121 points due to place in my tier, so if it really was meant that the easy game is your score divided by 10, it isn't even being displayed as such on the game page itself.

Yes, if you click View Game Details on the Piece of Cake page it does mention the "divide by 12" rule. I can't explain that.

However, there are several reasons why Piece of Cake (or *any* hourly game, for that matter) is a poor choice for point precision. Using Topic Mashes or quizzes in timed mode and the "divide by six" rule is a much, much safer option for point precision (example: a score of 600 in a Topic Mash awards 100 FT points.)

While hourly games *can* be used for point precision if you are very careful (and in fact I did use them for that purpose back in the pre-Topic Mash days), let's get to my reasons why they are not the best choice for that purpose:

1) Hourly games frequently award bonus points, which can throw off your calculations. This is a bit complicated, so please bear with me: If at the end of the hour, you finish in the top ten in your Division, you get a certain number of bonus points awarded depending on exactly what rank you finished. But the results page is quite confusing on this: it shows points with an *asterisk*. What that means is that those are the *total* number of FT points you *would* get *if* your ranking at the end of the hour is the same as your ranking at the time you check the results page. But that may not be the case, as other players may drop your ranking before the hour ends, which may drop your bonus awarded. Some divisions are short of players, so even the last place finisher still finishes in the top ten and gets awarded bonus points. Furthermore, the asterisked score is a *total*. By that I mean it is the total of the FT points awarded by the "divide by 12" rule *and* the projected bonus points based on your current ranking (which as I said may change). But to further complicate things, these points are *not* awarded all at once. They are awarded in two separate installments. The FT points from the "divide by 12" rule are awarded immediately, but the bonus points are awarded at the end of the hour. Sometimes examples make complicated issues like this easier to understand. Let's look at an example from the current hour's play in Piece of Cake. When I just checked, the leader in Division 6 had scored 977 points and his *asterisked* score was 231. 977/12 = 81.416666, which rounds to 81 points. The bonus for finishing first is 150 points, so the 231 number is the *sum* of the 81 points from the "divide by 12" rule and the 150 bonus points. But the player received his 81 points *immediately*. He *may*, and emphasize *may* get the other 150 points *only* if his first place position holds. So you *cannot* count on the asterisked score! Furthermore, as I said, it isn't awarded all at once.

2) In my experience, getting the timing just right for a target score in an hourly game is much more difficult than getting the timing right for a target score in a Topic Mash. Others may have different experiences, but that is my view, having tried both

3) Each different hourly game may have different scoring rules. Topic Mashes are simpler: "divide by six" rule, with *no* bonus points or asterisks to throw off your calculations.

4) You can play a given hourly game only once in the hour (except for the Expert Mulligan) so if you were off on your calculations or your play and fell a little short of the FT points you wanted, you will have to wait till the next game if you want to use that game to make up your shortfall. But with Topic Mashes, Gold Members can play an unlimited number one right after another. Fell short of your target by one point? No problem. Just play another Topic Mash and score 6 points to get that one FT point you needed.

In summary, while Piece of Cake and other hourly games *can* be used for point precision, don't. They are complicated, confusing, and other choices are better.

When you ask a simple question and then get lectured on why somebody thinks you’re doing something badly.

Brian, the hourlies don’t work well FOR YOU. That doesn’t mean some of us haven’t used hourlies to make precise scores successfully for years. It only takes a quick calculation and then time your game and then, done! The only thing that stopped nautilator was the incorrect game info! I find using the hourly games for this easy and it works.

Hopefully Terry reads this thread and fixes the info.

I also hope Terry addresses this. I just played the Piece of Cake game, scored 938 points, and got 94 points awarded. So it appears a "divide by 10 rule" is in place.

People can choose for themselves whether playing Piece of Cake is easier for point precision or a Topic Mash. I just stated my opinion and the reasons for it, not just for the original poster, but anyone else who may read it. Play Piece of Cake if you want, by all means.

See what happens.

I think the change was never intended, but just happened as a side effect from changing the divisions (which were first done on Smartest, so the code was probably copied over). Nonetheless, the discrepancy needs to be resolved either way (and given the numbers involved, it doesn't really matter which way as long as it's consistent).

I would also agree that it's generally preferable to use mashes, not only because it is more precise but also because we'd prefer that players always give their best in competitive games to avoid unwanted side effects - if you intentionally play below your strength in order to get a specific score, you're affecting your division assignment down the line.

I read your post and found it very informative--and didn't feel "lectured" Thanks for taking the time to post.

Thank you. I would've preferred just writing "I hope Terry fixes this" because I know long posts are tedious, but the problem isn't just the info section under View Game Details. The Results page, which I described in my example, clearly follows the "Divide by 12" rule while the actual points awarded seem to be following a "Divide by 10" rule. So both the info and the Results page need to be fixed, and I'm in no position to say when that might happen. I knew explaining my reasoning would be tedious, and I'm sorry about that. But I included as much detail as possible to illustrate just how complicated the issue is. And had I thought about it, once I'd committed to writing a long post, I would have included WesleyCrusher's point about affecting Division assignment as reason #5 to avoid using hourly games for point precision purposes. People can always do what they want to. I do things that people may disagree with, too, like writing down all the answers for a difficult quiz I failed when doing certain Challenges so that I can just do it again in 24 hours and get credit for successfully completing the quiz. My reasoning was that if they didn't want us to do that, they wouldn't put in the option to play again in 24 hours. I've been called to task for that. But I respect people's rights to their own opinions.

It isn’t more precise. The score needed in the hourly game can be precisely calculated (as long as the game info is correct of course).



Isn’t this a very difficult thing to expect? How do you know whether any players are playing ‘below strength’ to adjust their division? How would you decide and when would that be an issue that warranted action? Probably never?

Personally I think how hard you want to try is just personal preference and it falls in the same bracket as researching the answers to full authored quizzes is up to the individual. If everyone researched every answer for every authored quiz then all quizzes would be considered the same difficulty I.e. easy, difficult, tough etc. making that system meaningless.

I really don’t think the occasional hour using a game for an exact score is going to make a huge difference to somebodys division.

I have in no way stipulated that you are not allowed to use the hourly games for that purpose. I have merely expressed a preference - using an hourly game is not the recommended strategy. And for a player in a high division (5 or 6), a single very low score can indeed be enough to temporarily send them down by one division as the field near the top is tight and a single massive outlier will affect your average.

As to precision, the hourly game can never be as precise not because of calculation issues, but because you cannot be guaranteed to get a specific time you want.

If you play a mash, all scoring takes place on your client. If you need, for example anywhere between 63 and 68 points on a question, you can hit the button in that window and be assured to get that score. You would also be able to abandon a mash if you overshoot your target score and try one in a different topic instead.

That is not the case for an hourly where your actual time seen by the server will depend on internet connection speeds. If you do get network lag in either receiving the questions or sending the answers, your time will be different from what you see locally.

Fair enough, you are obviously able to see the data needed to state this so one low score can drop your division I accept that.

I still question that you, as someone representative of site staff, have stated above that you (did you say ‘we’ indicating site staff plural? I can’t remember) wouldn’t like to see anyone not trying their best in the hourly games. My question is who would ever decide this? Why would it ever need to be done? And what would happen as a result? Or you might be just expressing personal disapproval of this, in which case, that’s fine.



At the risk of this becoming tedious.... there is a fairly big margin for error. For example if the points won are calculated by score divided by ten then the FT points are given as while numbers, no decimal points. So if you need 61 points you can score anything between 606 and 614 (I’m not certain where 5 is rounded, presumably up). So I hit complete on the time needed for the higher score then there needs to be significant lag for that to fail (9 seconds in the easy game). So it is very easy to hit the mark.

I will concede though that it is not perfectly accurate in terms of connection.