An observation I made early on was that those players who had a score above the Score Mean, also had a reward above the Reward Mean. Vice versa for those below the mean. I had a tinker with gaps and standard deviation but nothing was obvious. Logarithms seem to be involved somewhere. If you get the scores then change them to a log (doesn't matter what base), then do the same for the rewards for each player, plot them on a scatter, you will always get a straight line! Similarly, if you just get the raw scores and raw rewards and plot them, they give you a near perfect power curve. How the gradient is worked out or how the battlefund gets integrated is beyond me. So wish I paid attention now in Math class. Edit: Woke up this morning and thought we're looking for y=mx+c, dy / dx would give you the gradient (m) of the straight line, ie. the difference in y divided by the difference in x. Do the sums and the gradient and I get 1.501192 in excel which is not far off the actual gradient as given by the scatter diagram 1.5008. Need to figure how to get to that point when we don't have the y values in the first place.

Did anyone get a x2 discount card today or was that particular daily bonus disabled?

It works! :blink: Now get to work on how they calculate each player's reward :)

This topic just got very interesting! I'll have to look at this tonight now. Excellent work. :)

@AbsoluteZero Oh, I saw the whole thing, dude! First, you were like, whoa! And then we were like, whoaa! And then you were like, whoaaa!

Here is an example of a scoreboard showing the ten players on the side that won in a ctf battle 20-0. Anyone like to draw any conclusions?

Congrats to @G.A.T.O.R - Video

So much criticism here but where to start. There is no point in me voicing it is there? There is a much fairer alternative to this. The downvotes shows the discontentment amongst players. Are you interested in genuine feedback? I'm not spending two hours formulating a detailed response and voicing it here for it to get lost on page 15 or 16. PM if you let me start a new topic elsewhere. Thanks.

Where are they at present then?

a) because mcdonalds wouldn't take me b )because I like the uniform c) because I can sell those lemon-fresh hand-wipes on ebay for 5¢ / dozen

I thought it was ISP problems? Coincidentally and no doubt unrelated, my malwarebytes software was going crazy just before the site went down, blocking IP addresses said to belong to Google. Glad the sale has been extended. It was the ethical thing to do and a winner for customer relations! Bonus - Those who took advantage of the last multiplier discount (a month ago) can also do it again today which wasn't available to buy on the weekend!

Strongly agree with all of that. I've lost count of the letters of complaint I have sent the BBC over their biased output. Fox are the extreme and they're not even embarrassed about their direct approach but the BBC like to be a bit more subtle with their propaganda. They have occasional bursts of honesty which might fool a lot of people into thinking they're trustworthy. If I want to know what's happening on any given issue then I will read multiple sources from across the media spectrum. It's just as important to read what the other side has to say too. The "why" question is very rarely asked at the bbc, officials say.

I hate to break this to you, watches are inanimate objects that cannot reproduce, nor do they have the chemical ingredients for self replication. Watches are made by man and the complexity of man came about via Darwinian natural selection. Now having read what I said, did it make a blind bit of notice to you? I think not. You'll still be churning out the old, fallacious watchmaker argument the next time creation and intelligent design crops up. What would it take for you to acknowledge the fact your analogy is bogus? Richard Dawkins has replied to you already.

The Pope's position and that of the Catholic church is one of belief in Darwinian Evolution and it has been for the last 60 years. They believe in micro-evolution, evolution and macro-evolution. What ever names you want to call it, they believe in it all with the exception of the origins of life which isn't evolution. People who resist evolution today are identical to those centuries ago who resisted in believing the world wasn't round or the centre of the universe. In time, everyone will accept evolution with the exception of some weird cult or other. Now if the Catholic church can do it, why are some still stuck in the past? Are you not allowed to challenge the beliefs you hold? Ask yourself why is that? Are you scared about being wrong? It follows that if you were wrong about that, what else are you wrong about? It also follows that everyone else who taught you these things were also wrong. In science, people don't mind being wrong about things because they would rather have the truth than peruse a falsehood.

:) :) Video Link :) :) @AbsoluteZero :)

Possibly on an individual level but mutations that benefit the population over time is the very definition of evolution as I understand it. Speciation is something else. Google Delta32 for the HIV sources - it's not a conspiracy.

Hi, I wouldn't bicker about the word upgrade unless you really get technical about the subject. I think what is meant by "upgrades" broadly speaking, are beneficial mutations that gradually improve the population. What you describe here is a species with a certain eye-colour, (let's say blue), failing to adapt to the virus. Black-eye are fit or fittest so they survive. Blue eyes are unfit so they die. No argument there. That's natural selection. But evolution can work the other way too. Over the long term, some blue-eyed individuals might acquire a beneficial mutation, that allows them to keep the colour and fight off the virus. An example of that today might be that some people are not susceptible to HIV.

Glad it will be fixed soon. I thought I was going to capture the flag and right at the last minute I thought - where's the flag I was carrying. Had to play the video to make sure I wasn't going mad. http://youtu.be/VJhk82WtF9s

Actually, in terms of morality, any book that makes allowances for murder, rape, slavery and the maltreatment of women is to be... well, I'll let you be the judge.

I have changed my vote after seeing this video. I now think evolution is false.

haha, viva charlie adam! I support this team from my home town. Shivers.

Be thankful you don't go to this school then... Truly shocking stuff.

I think the opposite. It's especially those who have felt pain and suffering will believe there is no all-loving creator. My thoughts maybe shaped by my environment but I also have a hand in shaping my environment and the environment of others - hopefully for the better. I think you're wrong. I get lots of good from it but please give me examples of why my life is all-bad. I'm not agitated as you say. I'm free of those religious shackles and I have a good understanding of science, evolution, the origins of life and the universe. I'm content that when I expire that there is nothing else in store for me. Until that day, I will keep working to pay the bills and maybe in a couple of years time have enough money to travel this world where I find myself and absorb the natural beauty of which I am a part.

How old is the universe then because we are receiving light from galaxies billions of light years away. What does the Bible say about that? How did all that oil get underground in less than 10,000 years? Did God put it there so we could use it for our 4x4's? If the Earth is 10k years old then God is one devious character. Why trick his creation into believing that the Earth is actually 4½ billion years old and the universe over twice that? Why did he go to all the trouble in planting all that proof and all that evidence? Or is it all a big test to weed out the critical thinkers amongst us leaving behind the obedient, unquestioning sheep! :D Those critical thinkers though eh? All going to Hell because they use their brains. Why did God give them brains? Ah, it's so he can send them to Hell in the giant game of life that he constructed for his amusement. Thank God I'm an atheist! B) Dawkins on young Earth Creationists Man in white coat lying about science saying Earth 6,000 years old I only watched the first 1min 25 seconds of that creationist video and the dishonesty of the man made me switch off. Why be dishonest? I thought lying is going against what Christians are taught!

No. Nuclear power is dirty. There are cleaner ways available and those ways should always be pursued first. Nuclear power is a good sticking plaster for shortfalls, i.e. a short term measure. If we still rely on them in 30 years time then our governments have failed us.