Pet Score bugged?

[Jerebear]

It's worth noting your method, bwana, that your method eventually becomes 1 point per 25 levels as well. Imagine all 508 of your pets were 25. Adding up all the levels would be essentially 508*25. Dividing that by 25 would give you 508 points, which is exactly one point for every level 25 pet.

Currently levelling provides about a large % of your pet score if you have a really small collection but a really small % of your pet score if you have a really large collection (about 3% if you have all 615 pets).

With your method it would be more stable, which I like. With the max sized collection, levelling would max out at 16.667% of your total pet score.

[Bwana]

Good Points, Jerebear. Assuming the next expac gives us Epic pets/stones, the total percentage contribution from leveling would drop from 1/6 (16.66%) to 1/8 (12.5%), or even 1/13 (7.69%) if we eventually get Legendary pets. This all seems reasonable to me.

Weighting could be debated ad nauseam, But I really like the idea of knowing I can make progress consistently by leveling, and one point for a max level pet seems very reasonable to me.

[Breanni]

Thanks for your suggestions and explanation, Bwana. A system that stays constant would certainly be an improvement over what we have now. And at .04, the math brings the pet level portion of the score in line with the percentage increase we had considered. We'll definitely take it under advisement.

[Bwana]

Thanks Breanni, I love the site and really appreciate the work that goes into it.

One final thought on the subject of scoring (I do love to beat a dead horse). If I were starting fresh, I would try to make the minimum contribution to the calculation 1 and everything else a whole number multiple of that, assuming that the final result generates a reasonably small number. If we made each individual level of a pet the smallest metric, players would clearly see how their progress is reflected in the score.

So, if we multiply everything in the current (and proposed) formula by 25 it looks like:

1 * Pet Level
50 * Poor
75 * Common
100 * Uncommon
125 * Rare
175 * Epic
300 * Legendary

Making our prototype rare, Level 25 pet worth 150 points (6*25), or 149 @ level 24
This would still cap a person's score at an easily readable 86,000 with 560 level 25 rares or 200,000 with 1000 Epics.

I know this might shock current players to see such a drastic change in scale, but would make player progress very apparent and simple to explain, and since we're on the subject of introducing that type of change...

Cheers, and I'll shut up now

[Kpb321]

Thanks for your suggestions and explanation, Bwana. A system that stays constant would certainly be an improvement over what we have now. And at .04, the math brings the pet level portion of the score in line with the percentage increase we had considered. We'll definitely take it under advisement.

I think you need to check your math because .04 * total pet level would be ~600 total points for pet leveling while your previously proposed 10 * average pet level would be 250 total points for pet leveling. .02 or /50 would put it closer to the increase you had proposed. His example only ends up being ~300 points because his average pet level is only 14.5.

[Jerebear]

Though still only 16.667% of total points available from a given collection, even at 600 points. Just having the pet and it being rare is 83.333% of your pets score, so just collecting a pet is worth 5x more than levelling it to 25. And that 16.667% will decrease as epic and legendary pets are added.

EDIT: Also, the two systems are somewhat different. Breanni's current system is an average pet level system while Bwana's is a total pet level system. I'm more in favor of the total pet level system (regardless of the scaling) because it makes each pet responsible for it's own points. In the current system, this is true for all point bonuses except for the level bonus, which is tied to an average over all pets, which kind of decouples pets from some their points (not fully). So currently, adding a new pet for players with a higher level collection can sometimes give less points than someone who never levels their pets adding a new pet. That feels weird. In the proposed system, that would go away, which I like.

EDIT2: I will say, 1 point for 25 levels "feels good" as well. Getting 5 points for a rare pet + 1 point for leveling it has a nice feel. I realize that is subjective though.

[Breanni]

I think you need to check your math because .04 * total pet level would be ~600 total points for pet leveling while your previously proposed 10 * average pet level would be 250 total points for pet leveling. .02 or /50 would put it closer to the increase you had proposed. His example only ends up being ~300 points because his average pet level is only 14.5.

Very perceptive, Kpb321. 10 * the average was what was publicly disclosed here, but we've been considering higher multipliers -- as high as 25.

25 * 25 = 625, which is still only ~20% of Pet Score. And 15-20% seems about right for the pet leveling contribution, as opposed to now where it's ~3%.

The original reason it was made so low was to avoid exploits, such as collecting only high level wild pets. But such exploits still won't affect scores at the higher ranges, where collecting will continue to trump leveling by a huge margin.

I realize such a large increase may be jarring, but we'll keep a close eye on the response. If enough people are dissatisfied with the change, we'll continue tweaking. Just remember, even if pet level accounts for ~20% of your score, that still leaves ~80% contributed through collecting alone, and that seems fair.

[Noonoo]

actually mine is not updating new levels and quality at all. Still shows a couple as uncommon that I have now upgraded to rare. And still shows some pets as level 1 and I have started levelling them.