Didn't pass as well, I guess it has something to do with region restricted GAs.
Comment has been collapsed.
Perhaps. The part that will apply for level 4 is:
((level>=2)&&(real_sent_region_free>0.5*real_sent_cv)&&(num_won>=num_sent)&&(real_sent_region_free>=0.7*real_won_region_free)&&(real_sent_public+real_sent_private>=0.5*real_won_cv))
I think you're right. The requirement includes for that level region-free being more than half of all sent CV. I might tweak the requirements around that point a bit. I'll let you know if so.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok I changed it. Can you see if you pass the filter now?
Comment has been collapsed.
No, still can't. Oh, well, actually I wasn't planning to enter this GA anyway)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm a bit confused. Is it intended for level 0 and level 1 to have lower requirements to pass than higher levels?
I happen to pass this: ((level==1)&&(num_won<10&&real_sent_cv>0.1*real_won_cv)&&(real_won_nonbundled<real_sent_nonbundled+20))
But not this (missed by 1% hehe): ((level>=2)&&(real_sent_region_free>0.5real_sent_cv)&&(num_won>=num_sent)&&(real_sent_region_free>=0.7real_won_region_free)&&(real_sent_public+real_sent_private>=0.5*real_won_cv))
This could totally be what you're trying to do, I just thought it was a bit strange. If it was what you were intending to do, I think that's very interesting. I like how inventive people are getting with custom rules :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, the intention is that for the higher levels the requirements are steeper. However, there are more possible ways to pass.
In any case, as with my response to PossiblePyscho, I think I've got a bit of tweaking to do around the level 2-4 area.
Comment has been collapsed.
The level 2-4 area just seems a whole lot pickier than the others. I don't think the region part is really necessary at all, I think the only parts that would be effective would be:
((level>=2)&&(real_sent>0.5real_sent_cv)&&(num_won>=num_sent))
Either that or just make the requirements || instead of && so you can still pass if you have region conflictions. I also see how you would want this part:
(num_won>=num_sent)
But then what about people that, instead of giving away 40-50 bundle games for $20 CV, gave away a $20 nonbundled game for the same $20 CV? Shouldn't they also be able to pass?
Comment has been collapsed.
Firstly the num_won >= num_sent was back to front, so fixed that now. About the issue you raise at the end, I'll make a change there too.
Comment has been collapsed.
Changed
(num_won<=num_sent)
to
((num_won<=num_sent)||((num_won<=5*num_sent)&&(real_sent_nonbundled>0.5*real_won_cv)))
Maybe that helps a bit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why do you have this?
((num_won<=num_sent)||((num_won<=5*num_sent)
So you can enter if you sent more than you won, OR you can enter if you sent 5x more than what you won? Doesn't make sense to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Careful of the parentheses, because the way you shortened it doesn't make sense. That line is of the form:
A OR (B AND C)
(but you wrote it like it was A OR B)
So naturally B is an easier requirement than A because it is AND'd with C.
Suppose you've won 5 bundled games but given 1 non-bundled game. You wouldn't pass A but you would pass B and so C means if you've sent more non-bundled CV than half of the total CV you've won you'd still pass. So it's supposed to take into account somewhat the possibility that a user has given away a couple of non-bundle games but has mostly won only bundled stuff, so their raw number of sent / won is not necessary to be over 1. It still needs to be more than 0.2 though.
The thing is, I also want to filter out people that, for example, get an expensive non-bundle game that gets a price error and exploit it for quick easy non-bundle CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah get in on the revised rule set but didn't on the first one. thanks for the giveaway but not my cuppa tea :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Test passed.Thank you for the puzzle,PieceOfMind :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Tested it out for curiosity's sake (already have the game) and failed miserably. I'm guessing it's got something to do with my recent fall to shame when it comes to CV. I will allow myself to live only because measures to get that in order have already been taken xD
Comment has been collapsed.
Changed (level==1) to (level>=1)
This will possibly allow anyone who is level 2 or more and has fewer than 10 wins, to enter when they weren't able to before.
You will still need (real_sent_cv>0.1*real_won_cv)&&(real_won_nonbundled<real_sent_nonbundled+20)
Comment has been collapsed.
Added Highschool Possession as well to the opening post.
Comment has been collapsed.
7 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by adam1224
1,374 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by FranckCastle
132 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by VahidSlayerOfAll
385 Comments - Last post 21 minutes ago by PsyKo
10 Comments - Last post 32 minutes ago by Seibitsu
6 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Dadkill
431 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by IfritInfernal
16 Comments - Last post 25 seconds ago by evertonj
285 Comments - Last post 39 seconds ago by AmirAM1
71 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by battlesxr
2,386 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by Eiion
760 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by GameOverGiveAways
75 Comments - Last post 31 minutes ago by krol7
125 Comments - Last post 34 minutes ago by noooba
Shan Gui - http://www.sgtools.info/giveaways/56b216bf-e270-11e5-8ad2-04019cc0dc01
Highschool Posession - http://www.sgtools.info/giveaways/517e452f-e2c3-11e5-8ad2-04019cc0dc01
Switchcars - http://www.sgtools.info/giveaways/a3a93aa9-e56d-11e5-8ad2-04019cc0dc01
Testing out a custom rule that I will use on future GAs. I'm not going to try and explain the whole thing, but if you pass the filter then good luck to you!
Here's a possibly slightly readable form of the requirements:
Comment has been collapsed.