Talk:Bilge scoring

Bilge Scoring

Interesting article and I feel a long time in coming as far as the wiki needing some scoring pages. Are these numbers hard and fast proven though? I've done some tests on bilging from time to time and while some of my findings are similar, some are quite different. I'm curious, what did you use for your test cases? An able alt and move counter between clears or something different? Not doubting the veracity of the findings, just curious as to how they were concluded. I'll see if I can dig up my old notes on bilge scoring and compare; maybe run some new tests as well. Also, I was bored so I made (and by made I mean re-wrote a pre-existing one) for the duty puzzle scoring. It may get changed around a bit but it's a preliminary start. It can be viewed at Template:Dutypuzzlescore --Muffynz 23:17, 12 September 2006 (PDT)

I'll take a look at the template (I've got bilge and carp down at the monemt). These numbers are based on observations I've made over about two years of play (from about april '04), as well as old developer posts. At one point, there was talk about rasing the value of sea donkeys and vegases because they were not worth the time needed to set them up, and I believe that the response from the developers was that the value would be raised (this was around the time that the star system was introduced).

If you think that there may be problems with these numbers, please, tell me what. I can easily test bilge, far better than I can test any other puzzle. Well, I can't really test vegas and sea donkey scores -- I can't get those reliably enough. I'm low ultimate in bilge. --Behindcurtai 00:02, 13 September 2006 (PDT)

Loving these pages. I was curious, when you talk about the combo's (bilge i hate to be honest, not very good at it) can you give a couple of image examples, place them in a gallery field will keep them organised, but, maybe a screenshot, with the combo, then add a black line around what would make that combo?? I know what a bingo is, but never anything higher. ive heard of sea donkeys and never knew how to make them. that would be a great addition IMO, please. -- Minimoses 01:01, 13 September 2006 (PDT)

In addition; i found that getting the bilge pump sparkling helps, when i use a jellyfish to clear some blocks, and i can clear 2 or more crabs at the same time :) --Minimoses 01:01, 13 September 2006 (PDT)

There were some concerns over the nature of this article in that it links numerical values to puzzles, something Y!PP doesn't present in the player UI. Consequently, there have been few such pages made in the past. The Ringers have decided however, that the article can stay - however I shall add a notice to reflect the fact that the numbers are only being used to show the relative value of moves and are not actual point values. --Featherfin 12:16, 13 September 2006 (PDT)

I would tend to agree with that Finny. Plus, I compared these numbers with some I have a some a few other bilgers have taken and we all came up with different values. We also were using a different base scale though. The article is good for a reference to teach starting bilgers why they need to conserve moves and how to make positive points above the 0 line. I went ahead and copied your disclaimer message to the other score pages Fin. The ones currently done are bilging, carpentry, and sailing. --Muffynz 15:18, 13 September 2006 (PDT)

Historical forum data

An old thread (bumped recently) where these numbers were discussed, with developer feedback.

http://forums.puzzlepirates.com/community/mvnforum/viewthread?p=4843#4843

Note that Loftling's old posting account still has a name, and can be searched on. Not much there -- stuff on carpentry (he wrote it), bilge, hiring NPP's and their charge per hour, gunning, and a few minor others. Nothing that I saw that reveals any numbers besides carp piece frequency. --Behindcurtai 19:53, 14 September 2006 (PDT)

Scoring Table

I just added this - I created it for my own reference in google spreadsheets, and it occured to me that it might be helpful for other people. My eloquence failed me in terms of explanation, and I am too lazy to figure out how to do cell shading - it might be nice to shade alternate efficiency rows grey or something.

Also, on Hunter scoring 133% efficiency or therabouts scores an incredible. zuf 14:19, 20 October 2006 (PDT)

I think this is a very interesting page. I read it before but I'm addicted to construct combinations at any cost. But once, I played limiting my constructions to what I could do with only a few moves, following the suggestions of the page, and it really pay off. But I must warn that the scoring table presented, is not in accord with the text before. The scores presented in the text and in the table are in disagreement, particularly to what constitutes the added value of one more piece in a row. I hope the right idea is the one in the text or else, there is no or few motivation to invest more moves in building a bigger row (more than 3) except the ones which appears accidentally. But whatever is the right point of view, the disagreement should be solved or at least acknowledge (calling the attention for the differences) in the page. As it is, anyone will look for the table as continuation of the text, and will not note that the scores presented in the two places are different. Jpafonso 16:12, 5 February 2007 (PST)

That's a good point- I didn't notice that before. The scoring table is written as if a 4-clear scores 4 (instead of 5) and a 5-clear scores 5 (instead of 7). Furthermore, I can't imagine how it would be possible to have any greater than a 3-clear in the first row (unless you get REALLY lucky and a 4x4x4 creates itself in a cascade). I've made a new table for the main page, since it appears that the original table was created (incorrectly) from this page text. Dcschmo 09:55, 21 April 2007 (PDT)

Notes on scores and indicator

As a conclusion, you can notice that it is better to work on the combo (3*3,3*3*3) than on the size of the block because using a move to improve a block is less efficient than breaking the smaller block now.

This actually depends on overall ppm you are able to maintain.

A. 3x3x3 in 4 moves is worth 27 points (6.75 ppm)

B. 3x3x4 is 5 moves is worth 33 points (6.60 ppm)

C. 3x3x5 is 6 moves is worth 39 points (6.50 ppm)

It is only more efficient to go for A instead of B if your average ppm is more than 33 - 27 = 6 ppm, same with B vs C and A vs C. Earlier in the text it says that it's highly unlikely that anyone can maintain 200% (6ppm) efficiency, so by all means upgrade 3x3x3 if you can.

To word it more appropriately and universally (in my mind at least) it's important to consider the marginal ppm as opposed to the average. The marginal ppm for upgrading a bingo in one move is 6 which is, as you said, incredibly good. I guess all I'm trying to say is that the notes on scores and indicators would make a lot more sense if the quoted numbers were marginal. Barrelmonkey 11:14, 22 February 2008 (PST)