1831 replies to this topic

[Rusty]

System or not, I'd still rather keep the voting topic as it is. I don't mind the whole system thing, as long as it's for personal use (e.g. if I want to put notes next to a game I've played to use in my feedback later).

[Blake]

Don't expect too much, I'm bound to run into numerous things that I won't know how to do

Would you somehow hook it up to a server that would record all the votes?

That would be ideal, but it may be a little more than what I'm capable of

Edited by Blake, 19 May 2012 - 04:18 PM.

[TerraFriedSheep]

Would you somehow hook it up to a server that would record all the votes?

That would be ideal, but it may be a little more than what I'm capable of

It would also probably make it too easy to cheat. I'd rather have concrete evidence of votes posted by members here on GMC, either in a topic as is, or in a PM with a mod.

[Snail_Man]

On the other hand, I do like to check if I get any votes, and it's very nice to know how many votes (if any) I'm getting. I just wish there was some sort of complication, that would make calculating votes harder for your average GMC'r...

[Blake]

I just had an idea. Instead of trying to make the program store the votes, I could make it give you a little banner/image sort of thing with the name of the game and the scores you gave it, which you could then post in the voting topic.

And... it's 3am, so I'm going to bed

Edited by Blake, 19 May 2012 - 05:07 PM.

[TeamSteeve]

I wish I could stay up that late nowadays Blake! Anyway, I'm up now.

It would be cool if it output an image of sorts, but I want the ability to play over some games and then go back and modify my scores after I'd had a bit more of a think about it (and even possibly replayed some games). So as long as it stores the scores and only spits out the image when I'm ready, I have no objections!

[Snail_Man]

I wish I could stay up that late nowadays Blake! Anyway, I'm up now.

It would be cool if it output an image of sorts, but I want the ability to play over some games and then go back and modify my scores after I'd had a bit more of a think about it (and even possibly replayed some games). So as long as it stores the scores and only spits out the image when I'm ready, I have no objections!

Sounds good to me! 1+

[HayManMarc]

For what its worth, I'm in favor of keeping SSE and keeping the votes public. Easier that way for all to see that the voting is honest.

[makerofthegames]

For what its worth, I'm in favor of keeping SSE and keeping the votes public. Easier that way for all to see that the voting is honest.

Yeah, I agree.

Any real arguments against it can probably be dropped on grounds of "hey dude, this isn't even about the prizes..just get over it and have fun."

[Dangerous_Dave]

We could just post replies to the games topic as normal, each game you wanted to vote for would have the game and the rating you gave it out of 10 (perhaps multiple categories if people wish). These all get averaged up after voting closes (people would probably post their reply, and edit it as they play more games, much like what happened this jam).

Reviews would be posted in the topic as well.

I do think it would be easier to set up an external website to automate the process, but this is the GMC Jam, it should stay on the GMC, hence why I've suggested this option. People voting with their GMC accounts have their reputation at stake, so downvoting (etc) is less likely to be a problem.

I think public votes are a good thing, too. People are more likely to vote honestly when their votes are there for all to see.

[speedchuck]

I really don't see much reason to change the scoring system, this jam was so perfect... I would like a randomly ordered .zip though, if it can be done. Just make a program that would rename the individual folders, using numbers, and when Nocturne makes the .zip he could make sure every game has a folder before giving it to someone. Is this possible?

[Nocturne]

I really don't see much reason to change the scoring system, this jam was so perfect... I would like a randomly ordered .zip though, if it can be done. Just make a program that would rename the individual folders, using numbers, and when Nocturne makes the .zip he could make sure every game has a folder before giving it to someone. Is this possible?

Sure, I can do that. Although then we will get people complaining because they have been put at the bottom of the folder list!

[speedchuck]

The zip could have a program that people would run to randomize the name of each folder (using numbers). I don't see anything the reviewers would have to lose by running the 'folder name randomizer'. This would only work if the reviewers' computers were organizing the folders in alphabetical order, though.

[Snail_Man]

My computer organizes it alphabetically, but it also groups all the exe's separately from the folders, so I played all the folder games, and then all the exe's.

[speedchuck]

My computer organizes it alphabetically, but it also groups all the exe's separately from the folders, so I played all the folder games, and then all the exe's.

Same here. That's why all of the games would have to be in folders for the idea I had to work. Does anyone know how to make a folder randomizer?

[Dangerous_Dave]

It seems like rating games independently of each other solves all of the problems you're trying to solve...

[makerofthegames]

It seems like rating games independently of each other solves all of the problems you're trying to solve...

The only problem they are trying to solve is people complaining that their game gets played first/last, nothing else...Unless you're responding to something several posts up, in which case you probably should've quoted.

[Dangerous_Dave]

Hmm, I think I misread something there. It's an age old problem, and it's difficult to solve. A folder name randomiser shouldn't be too difficult to implement, and I guess it's the best option considering the circumstances.

[TeamSteeve]

Hmm, I think I misread something there. It's an age old problem, and it's difficult to solve. A folder name randomiser shouldn't be too difficult to implement, and I guess it's the best option considering the circumstances.

Whipped something up.
What do you think?

var foldercount, foldernum, dir;

//change foldercount to the number of entries
foldercount = 6;

for( foldernum = 0; foldernum < foldercount; foldernum += 1 )
{ folder[foldernum] = "" };

// set folder[#] to random directories
dir =
filename_name
( file_find_first( working_directory + "/*", fa_directory ) );
if( dir = "." ){ dir = filename_name( file_find_next() ) };
if( dir = ".." ){ dir = filename_name( file_find_next() ) };

repeat( foldercount )
{
    do
    { foldernum = round( random( foldercount-1) ); }
    until ( folder[foldernum] = "" );
    
    folder[foldernum] = filename_name( dir );
    dir = filename_name( file_find_next() );
};
file_find_close();

// change directory names to include number
for( foldernum = 0; foldernum < foldercount; foldernum += 1 )
{
    if( directory_exists( folder[foldernum] ) )
    {
        file_rename
        (
            folder[foldernum],
            string( foldernum ) + "_" + folder[foldernum]
        );
    }
    else
    {
        show_message( "ERROR#Something went wrong!" );
    }
};

show_message( "Done" );
game_end();

EDIT: Forgot to take out a useless part.
EDIT2: Made foldercount easier to understand.

Edited by TeamSteeve, 20 May 2012 - 03:02 AM.

[Snail_Man]

Wow! That code works quite well Team! I did a small test with 6 folders, and the only bug I found, was that it said there was an error, and then said that it was done. Other than that, it seemed to work very well.