ID:81758
 
Keywords: game_in_a_day

Poll: Should the GiaD event award Places, such as 1st Place and 2nd Place?

I would be more likely to participate if it were a competition with rankings. 33% (9)
I already plan to participate without them, but rankings would be better. 25% (7)
I will be participating, and I don't mind one way or the other. 22% (6)
I will be participating, and I like it without ranks (like last year). 3% (1)
I might decide not to participate if rankings are introduced. 3% (1)
I will not be participating (for some other reason) 11% (3)

Login to vote.

One more last minute change before we get the GiaD underway. In the past we've had problems getting judges for the GiaD, and I've judged the last two events alone. For various reasons, I decided that it's better to judge the entries individually ("Complete" or "Unplayable", etc.) instead of competitively ("1st Place" or "Honorable Mention", etc.).

I recently explained my reasoning for this policy in a response to D4RK3 54B3R (skip):

D4RK3 54B3R wrote:
[...]

Those are all contentious issues which have come up every year when doing the GiaD. I have strong opinions about how the event should be held, but they may not be in sync with what this community wants. I'm more than willing to consider any input, just keep in mind that I'm the only person judging these entries. Until that changes, the reality of bias in my preferences and judging style must be accepted.

Is anyone pitching in for prizes, or is that not going to happen anymore?
And also, is there even going to be top places awarded? Like first place, second place, and third place?

Purchasing and distributing prizes is a logistical hassle I'm not suited to handle. That being said, the main reason I don't award "1st Place" or anything like that is because a lot of what I do is highly subjective. I play the games, I write up a review, take a screen shot, and then talk about what I liked or didn't like. If there were four of us judging then I could feel more confident about the relative rankings, but until that happens I don't feel that it's fair to the participants to comparatively rank the entries.

I feel that is a vital part of the GiaD, that the entries are evaluated individually, and not comparatively. Each entry is categorized based on completion, polish, gameplay, and use of theme. I believe that any competent developer with a good grasp of the development process should be able to achieve a rank of Complete given the time frame and restrictions. Requiring that they then best all other developers robs them of this achievement.

In the past I have tried to balance both sides in the same document, and (unless someone changes my mind) I'll be following the same basic format. Each entry will be judged according to the criteria and will be given one of the categorizations. Then I will order them on the page according to how well I feel they did comparatively. If you look at the results for 2007 you'll see that JP's Ragnarok is listed first, followed by CaptFalcon33035's Frost Fortress, which are both fantastic games. (I seriously wish Frost Fortress were expanded on, I would probably be playing it right now). Even though there is no formal declaration, I felt JP's was the strongest entry in terms of scope, depth of play, and replay value, none of which are determining factors in evaluating whether or not a game is complete.

I hope that I'm striking a balance, that that both sides can be satisfied with the result. If not, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

without a strict 24 hour timeframe, the GIADs really lose a lot of their appeal to me. I like the tension and the stress and pumping something amazing and cool out of that.

So do I. This has been a concession I've had to make given the geographical distribution of BYOND members. Acebloke and Elation are in England, and isn't JP is Australia? For them, a time frame of 6:00pm Saturday to 6:00pm Sunday doesn't make a damn bit of sense. I'd like the rule to be midnight to midnight, your own local time, but I have no way of enforcing that without giving each time zone its own theme. I, personally, work from midnight to midnight, and I think that anyone else who can get that time free (from work, etc.) should do the same. In the end it does come down to the honor system, but at least it's a fair honor system.

I hope the above addresses your concerns. It is an imperfect system, and if you have any ideas for improvement please let me know. For the sake of clarity allow me to summarize my thoughts:

1. In keeping with the spirit of the event, games are judged individually, not comparatively. Game are, however, ordered (highly subjectively!) in the results document based on their comparative strengths. The first game in the document is analogous to the first place winner in a competition.

2. A strict 24hr time frame is preferable, but not feasible given the worldwide distribution of developers. An honor system wherein developers choose their own 24hr period from a 48hr window is the best compromise I can think of while still announcing a unifying theme at the start of the event.
(Back to Top)

If you are a past participant, or if you are planning to participate this weekend, or if you would participate if there were rankings, I would like to hear your opinion. Please note that, though this is a poll, I will be basing future policy on ideas, so please comment about why you voted the way you did. If I get a convincing response before the day is through, I may change the policy in time for tomorrow.
I'm neither for nor against the idea. Sure, prizes for the better entries would be a nice incentive. At the same time, someone has to fund this and ideally a team of mostly-impartial judges must be forged (in this case overnight).

An "event" is easier to maintain as it is free to promote (except in the cost of valuable time). This also expands longevity. Some day, I imagine, you won't want to hold the reigns of the GiaD, and it would be easier for the follow-up host to keep going if they didn't have to field a team of judges and provide prizes.

A "contest" will likely draw more attention. Simply put, if you wave a steak in front of 20 dogs they'll all go for it, though only one or two will actually get a worthwhile chunk of meat. However, this suffers pitfalls in contrast to the benefits laid out for the "event" type.
Kuraudo wrote:
Sure, prizes for the better entries would be a nice incentive. At the same time, someone has to fund this and ideally a team of mostly-impartial judges must be forged (in this case overnight).

I just want to mention that getting "1st Place" may be the only prize that's needed; remember that the original Olympians competed for nothing more than a circle of leaves to put on their head. I don't mind awarding places (I kinda already do), I just took a different approach.

Perhaps what we're dealing with here is an issue of scale: Nanowrimo (my inspiration for the GiaD) draws from a much larger base, so they don't need to offer incentives to achieve a critical mass. If the falling participation rates are due to this shift in policy, as D5 suggested, then it's time to change policy. To be honest, I hadn't considered that angle; I thought that we got less people last year because the judging took so long the two previous years. That's why the new policy was designed to expedite the judging process.
Going by my experience with the first GiaD event, I worked late into the night and woke up early to resume work on my game /because/ of the ratings and prizes. I was sure that all of the work I'd poured into my game would place it in the top 3, especially given the technical aspects of the game. (Come on... Who else had pixel/vector-based movement in their game, much less vector-based AI?)

On the other hand, the results from that first event are what have forever discouraged me from future GiaD events. My project, that I'd spent a good 18 hours working on, placed next to last with an abysmally low score of 6/10, beaten by games that made me say "You've got to be f@%$ing kidding me!" I can only assume this was due to the reviewers' tastes coupled with not reading the instructions, or general laziness. At any rate, I'm not going to spend a full day working on a project just to have it rated last because (e.g.) the reviewer likes RPGs and I made an action game.
Personally, I'll be participating either way. I do like the more individual judging that's done at the moment - much as comparative judging can provide a motivating factor, it also provides for a helluva lot of drama and so on.

Plus, aren't the general comments you make about the game more important than the blue ribbon? I'm certainly more interested in detailed feedback over a single number.
Jp wrote:
Personally, I'll be participating either way.

Likewise. It's not like I have anything particularly important to do that night.

I don't really care how it's judged, what (if any) the award is or who judges it (provided there's the mandatory impartiality). I see this competition as a method to jump in with some of BYONDs up-and-coming and some of BYONDs best-and-brightest and see where I stand.
I hope to participate soon, though depends on my availability to do so. Yeah, I heard about what happened to that GIAD from people chatting about it.
I don't think the time issue is a problem if it remains more of a event than a contest. The idea is for developers to learn something from their own use of time, not what other people think. Yes you get so far up a list, but if you cheat then what are you getting out of it personally?

If it was more a contest, then yes you'd need a panel of some sort like it was an ice skating competition, and a more rigid set of rules on the time frame would have to come about.

I would offer to help Judge myself, but I'm still in the state that I'd prefer to participate. I also don't think that Iain is particularly biased to anyone or any style of game, so he remains a very good Judge (and that has nothing to do with the fact that my entry was on top last year :p).

He tried to get other people involved before, and it didn't particularly work well if I remember when someone else attempted to host it, and I think that stopped some people doing it again or trying for the first time which is a bit sad. Its too late I think to change it now, but maybe something more fancy next year?
Oh, and also, I just like the challenge because I seem to do better attempting to make games in one day than I do long term because I lose interest or other things happen, so I'm not bothered either way in places or prizes.
Instead of having a ranking, you could find some people who would give an award to the game they like the best in a theme. Theres a few BYOND hosting companys now that could give a free hosting prize or two which would be good advertisment for them.
See if you can talk Tom into adding some sort of official BYOND trophy to display on the blog/hub page.

I don't really care about membership or cash prizes.
On behalf of Farawayhost.com, we'd like to offer a free 30 day Tier 1 BYOND hosting subscription to anyone who completes a Polished rated game.

We'll also provide a free 1 year BYOND membership to our personal favorite entry.

We'll contact the winners via the BYOND pager after the results are posted.

Farawayhost.com employees are, of course, exempt from these prizes.
Paperclip studios would be more than happy to donate a membership. Second place in this case?
I notice that my first comment focused entirely on the issue of judging, but I failed to talk about the time factor!

Anyway, I am very much supportive of the flexibility that is provided by the "24-hour workday" versus 12am Saturday to 11:59pm Saturday in a specific time zone. Recently, I've been spending my Saturday evenings playing (and winning) Poker with some friends. Last weekend I made $10 (yeah we don't have $300 buy-ins), and actually have never lost money there, so I'd like to not have to call off from that for this.
@Gakumerasara:

Much of the criticism you have for the GiaD, especially the first incarnation, is completely valid. Lummox JR had a similar experience in that he spent an entire day programming without any return on that investment. Though I understand your reasoning, I personally feel It's a shame that you've been soured to the event, because you're probably the BYOND game developer I have the most respect for as a developer. You make fun games that people want to play, you finish them, you polish them, and you update them.

I don't feel that your criticism of the judging results is properly placed, though. There was only one RPG submitted and it was disqualified. The only other game with RPG qualities (though still in what I'd consider the action genre) was Gooseheaded's "Circles Seekers", and the top 7 of 14 entries were all action games.

I remember your "Plunder on the High Seas" very well, because I spent more time judging that entry than any of the others. Were we just going for technical appreciation, your game would have scored much higher, vying with JP and Airjoe's entries for the top places. What sunk your game, in my opinion (I can't speak for Crispy, and our scores were averaged together), was three things:
1. Thirty minutes is a very long time for one round of an action game. No other action game required that we play continuously for that long.
2. Combat was difficult. You chose to recreate period naval warfare, and ran into the same problems experienced in that period: broadsides are a terrible way to fight. There's a reason they lined up and fired at each other. My play testers had a very difficult time with the combat system.
3. Movement was unresponsive. Chalk it up to BYOND's client/server model, but one action per tick did not allow the ships to be turned fast enough to represent the players' intentions. This was certainly a valid representation of the movement of a large ship in the water, but it didn't jive at all with the combat system. Enemies basically had to agree to line up in firing positions in order to fight.

This may not have been the experience you had in play testing, but it was our experience. I would revisit any GiaD entry were a new aspect of it made clear to me, so please inform me if I'm doing something wrong. I do admit that there are some games who's placement I'm not sure of; I remember absolutely nothing about Gerdan's "Data Thieves" except that I had a hell of a time getting it to work, and then only played it once. I pretty much relied on Crispy's score completely. The Hobo Simulator's place could also be attributed to my own personal experience in judging: I judged it directly after EPA (which was a blast) and the two have similar atmospheres.

Some shuffling of the ranks is deserved, and Pepi's "Thief" definitely deserves second place. I do not, however, believe that the gameplay of your entry, as presented, should have placed it into the top ranks. If each game were to received proper polish, the depth of your entry would pay off as it surpassed the many shallow entries which can be fully explored in two plays. As presented, though, it has flaws which would need to be addressed before a casual human being could be expected to play it of his own volition and enjoy the experience.
@Everyone:
It seems pretty obvious to me now that some form of official comparative recognition of exceptional entries is needed (in other words, we need ranks). I'm still not comfortable with awarding "1st Place" because I do feel that there are two different standards each entry is being judged by: The official standard of completion, and the unofficial but very real appreciation of a game's scope, depth of play, and replay value. Perhaps what I can do is continue to judge them as in the past, but award one entry as the "Best of Show" or some such thing. Eh, screw it. I'll just take the one I like the best and slap "1st Place" on it.

Cbgames wrote:
Instead of having a ranking, you could find some people who would give an award to the game they like the best in a theme. Theres a few BYOND hosting companys now that could give a free hosting prize or two which would be good advertisment for them.

I like that idea a lot, particularly because it removes the need for the host (myself in this case) to coordinate things with the sponsors. In the past we had issues with the prizes because the host had to mediate between the winning participants and the sponsors - with the judging taking half a year, I don't know if some of our prizes ever went through. Our biggest problem was a direct result of the rankings: We felt like we had to confirm that the first place winner got the prize from Sponsor_A before Sponsor_B sent his prize to the second place winner, otherwise second and third place could get prizes while first place got squat! The way you, Jerico2day, and Magicbeast20 are talking about allows each sponsor to award prizes as they see fit.

@Jerico2day & Magicbeast20:
That's great! I'll look into each of your hosting services and say a little bit about them when I announce the theme, and also when I post the results. I plan to post the results exactly 1 week after the event is over, so please contact me during the week, and I'll send you a draft of the results file along with the hosting files. I'd like to be able to announce with the results who got what prize from what service, so you'll need to communicate that back to me pretty quickly. Given that I wasn't expecting this extra communication, I can push the results back to 2 weeks if necessary. To boil down all of the above: Email me please :)

@SuperAntx:
The challenge in May and this GiaD are intended to be a demo for what could be done with medals and events, just like you're describing. I had no intentions to ask that the GiaD receive official status (especially considering our track record) but I am hoping that official BYOND medals are in the community's future.
IainPeregrine wrote:
@Jerico2day & Magicbeast20:
That's great! I'll look into each of your hosting services and say a little bit about them when I announce the theme, and also when I post the results. I plan to post the results exactly 1 week after the event is over, so please contact me during the week, and I'll send you a draft of the results file along with the hosting files. I'd like to be able to announce with the results who got what prize from what service, so you'll need to communicate that back to me pretty quickly. Given that I wasn't expecting this extra communication, I can push the results back to 2 weeks if necessary. To boil down all of the above: Email me please :)

PaperClip Studios isn't a hosting company. It's like Iccusion Entertainment. We make games. :)

I'll be sure to get in contact with you via email.
Hey IainPeregrine, our plan is to just give access to the developers so they can upload and host their game. That way they can moderate it as they see fit, as I find many games made on BYOND require an active moderator in order for the game to run.

So a tip to anyone developing a game, make it runnable by anyone who logs in! Then it can run 24/7 without someone a GM's intervention.

Anyway, a list would be cool, then we can judge our fav game and release the result at the same time you do.

I'll be in touch.
IainPeregrine wrote:
I don't feel that your criticism of the judging results is properly placed, though. There was only one RPG submitted and it was disqualified. The only other game with RPG qualities (though still in what I'd consider the action genre) was Gooseheaded's "Circles Seekers", and the top 7 of 14 entries were all action games.

The action vs RPG bit was a metaphor. In terms of the game I submitted, what I meant was that if someone didn't like "Pirates!" (the game it tried to mimic), then they would absolutely hate PotHS. What's worse, someone who hadn't played "Pirates!" before (and wasn't used to the movement system and combat style) would have no basis for understanding the game, what it was trying to be, or even how to properly play it. I guess "Pirates!" is a more obscure game than I thought...

The game itself would have been best played as an open-ended (no time limit) multiplayer game, where players try to raid each others ships and sink each other after building up resources on NPCs. I don't expect that was the way any of the judges actually played/tested the game. The only reason I gave it a time limit at all was because the contest specifically required an end to the game.

I entered the contest as a challenge, and I thought I had a good chance of making the top 3. Not placing in the top 3 wasn't the end of the world. Being out-rated by so many games that I personally thought weren't that great, getting a score of 6/10, and being placed second-to-last is what killed it for me.