1432 replies to this topic

[Dangerous_Dave]

My understanding of the way the voting system works is that the game with the most first place votes wins. The second place vote of those who voted for the winner is now counted as their first place vote. This repeats until all places have been filled/all votes have been counted.

If this was how it worked, then we would have very few ties due to some people ranking all games.

That could work, but we would need to determine if..you know, if that's actually a better way of doing things. /shrug?

Yeah, there was a discussion about it last Jam. Rating are something everyone understands, unlike SSE. It also means you don't need to play all games to give a "fair" vote.

Personally I don't think the ratings are very important to the idea of the Jam, but I have opinions on it none the less .

[lukew23]

My understanding of the way the voting system works is that the game with the most first place votes wins. The second place vote of those who voted for the winner is now counted as their first place vote. This repeats until all places have been filled/all votes have been counted.

If this was how it worked, then we would have very few ties due to some people ranking all games.

I don't know how that happens, but it may be because several games are clearly of a higher standard than the rest, and gain the higher placings. After that, it mainly comes down to personal preference (for want of a better term). Because of this, you get many games getting a single vote for the lower placings, leading to many ties. Example:
- After many iterations of the voting system, 43rd place is to be decided.
- Voter A's current vote is for Game A
- Voter B's current vote is for Game B
- Voter C's current vote is for Game C
- Because no-one else voted for any of the games not yet placed (as they only voted for their top 3 or 10 etc), Games A, B and C tie for 43rd place.
However, this almost certainly wouldn't throw up ties for 20 games in last place. This leads me to believe that Nocturne either doesn't count votes for very low places or that he simply ties a lot of games in low places so no-one has to suffer the indignity of coming last. I don't think that's what Nocturne would do, though, so there may be a quirk in his application of the system which throws up a lot of ties.

[11clock]

Wrong. I got no first place votes in the GMC Jam #5, and I got 10th place.

Hmm, I would think anyone without a first place vote would be eliminated, based on this: https://sites.google...Home/gmcgvoting

I'm still against the public voting system entirely. Several proper, non-biased judges should review these games, not us.

Who is going to be interested enough in the GMC Jam to review every game, but not want to enter themselves. I love the fact it's community voted.

I think a rating system should be used. You rate a game 0-5 based on how good it was, rather than ranking against other games. This way you don't have to play all the games to rate fairly.

We would create a new subforum, with post ratings enabled. You post a topic for your game, people play and rate. Downside is that the outcome is not a surprise.

Whoops, maybe I should have been a little clearer. I meant how some people ranked games from 1-60, but there were still a LOT of people tying for last place. You'd think that there would be at most 2 or 3 people tied in each spot or something because of this, not 15.

My understanding of how the voting system works based on this link is that anyone without a first place vote gets last (all first place votes are tallied, lowest ranking option gets eliminated).

That must not be how it works, then. I know 100% that I didn't get any first place votes during the GMC Jam #5, yet I scored pretty high.

And votes are ONLY fair if the voter has played every single game. You can't bypass this.

Edited by 11clock, 19 August 2012 - 03:18 AM.

[makerofthegames]

And votes are ONLY fair if the voter has played every single game. You can't bypass this.

Yeah, and that's too bad. The system is not perfect, but in the end nobody should really care because the point is to make the game, not to win random prizes.

[newkill]

There's the case where you review someone's game and give it a bad note, then this person thinks your game is great but doesn't vote for you because you gave him a bad note.
Also, some people may vote for the most popular members here, regardless of the quality of the game.
Or people may voluntarily not vote the games done by popular members that are better to give a chance to other members.

Anyway, it sure is fun to be in the best games of a competition, but to me, the feedback is more important, and so far it is quite positive for my game so I'm glad.

Edit : I agree that it is more fair if someone that votes have played all the games.

Edited by newkill, 19 August 2012 - 03:52 AM.

[makerofthegames]

There's the case where you review someone's game and give it a bad note, then this person thinks your game is great but doesn't vote for you because you gave him a bad note.

Never has happened, as far as I can tell. As for the other two points, no and no. There is no evidence of these things happening. Just read the reviews for games yourself, you can see people put a lot of effort into being fair.

People here are generally not arses when they're voting, for whatever reason.

Edited by makerofthegames, 19 August 2012 - 03:52 AM.

[Dangerous_Dave]

And votes are ONLY fair if the voter has played every single game. You can't bypass this.

If someone plays a game and thinks it deserves a 4/5, how would playing other games affect that? I think ratings are the fairest way assuming there will be at least some people who cannot play every game but who will vote. And if we expect the Jam to grow in size, then eventually there's going to be a point where no one can play every game, and we are going to need a new voting system.

[makerofthegames]

Although, a simple "out of five" rating would be way too simple, and you'd probably see many games tying for first. I know that isn't necessarily what you're suggesting, I just feel like pointing that out.

Most people already vote on several different criteria, though, so whatever.
(Although, I honestly don't see what's wrong with the current voting system, even if we get hundreds of entrants. Perhaps someone is misunderstanding how it's working? I think we both might, an expert like Nocturne should really speak up and settle this down)

Edited by makerofthegames, 19 August 2012 - 04:08 AM.

[11clock]

And votes are ONLY fair if the voter has played every single game. You can't bypass this.

If someone plays a game and thinks it deserves a 4/5, how would playing other games affect that? I think ratings are the fairest way assuming there will be at least some people who cannot play every game but who will vote. And if we expect the Jam to grow in size, then eventually there's going to be a point where no one can play every game, and we are going to need a new voting system.

Simple, he could be missing out on a game that he would like even more.

But yes, if the games start coming in at large numbers, we'll need a new voting system.

[newkill]

There's the case where you review someone's game and give it a bad note, then this person thinks your game is great but doesn't vote for you because you gave him a bad note.

Never has happened, as far as I can tell. As for the other two points, no and no. There is no evidence of these things happening. Just read the reviews for games yourself, you can see people put a lot of effort into being fair.

These were "theories" of how some people may act when voting, but yeah I'm pretty sure this is not something that happens often if it happens at all.

[Dangerous_Dave]

Although, a simple "out of five" rating would be way too simple, and you'd probably see many games tying for first. I know that isn't necessarily what you're suggesting, I just feel like pointing that out.

Why would you have games tying for first? You'd average to several decimal places, so you'd have less ties than you have now.

And yes, this is just general commentary on what I think would be a better system (especially if we start getting a lot more entries), so it would need some tweaking. You could easily have it out of 10. I chose 5 because my plan when I said that was to use the out-of-5 rating system for posts.

Simple, he could be missing out on a game that he would like even more.

Seeing a game he likes more has no effect on the rating of that game. He would just rate the new game higher. You wouldn't rate a terrible game 5/5 if there were no better entries, because it's still not a 5/5 game. A rating system is, in my opinion, the best voting system to use for when it becomes unreasonable for most people to play every game.

[makerofthegames]

Although, a simple "out of five" rating would be way too simple, and you'd probably see many games tying for first. I know that isn't necessarily what you're suggesting, I just feel like pointing that out.

Why would you have games tying for first? You'd average to several decimal places, so you'd have less ties than you have now.

And yes, this is just general commentary on what I think would be a better system (especially if we start getting a lot more entries), so it would need some tweaking. You could easily have it out of 10. I chose 5 because my plan when I said that was to use the out-of-5 rating system for posts.

Because when people are told to rate something out of five, you get mostly 5s and 1s.
Generally, if we were to ask them to do something like that, it would be to rate the game on several criteria and would end up out of fifty or so, which is..basically what we do now, so I don't really see how asking people to vote differently is useful. That's completely different than changing how the votes are tallied, isn't it?

I understand that the way you're suggesting would require everyone to vote in similar ways and..I feel that's too intrusive on the voters, and could easily lead to skewed results.

Edited by makerofthegames, 19 August 2012 - 05:35 AM.

[11clock]

Simple, he could be missing out on a game that he would like even more.

Seeing a game he likes more has no effect on the rating of that game. He would just rate the new game higher. You wouldn't rate a terrible game 5/5 if there were no better entries, because it's still not a 5/5 game. A rating system is, in my opinion, the best voting system to use for when it becomes unreasonable for most people to play every game.

Exactly, he would rate the other game higher, thus changing which game he would vote for. However, since he won't play that other game, the one he played will get his vote. If someone doesn't play every game, he will only vote for a game that he has actually played. This is why every game must be played, otherwise it would be unfair.

[makerofthegames]

I agree.
However, I would like to spread the idea that it doesn't have to be fair, because the community Jam is all about the game Making, not the game Voting.

[Robert3DG+]

With 60+ games you're never going to get everyone to play all the games. It's long, it's time consuming and playing 10 not so good games in a row while trying to think of positive critique can be hard for less impatient people (Or anyone really).

Maybe next time take the 60 or so games, split them into 3 tiers and let people download/play them 20 at a time a week or something? Then compare notes and vote from there? This obviously is not a problem for everyone and I would agree with most in saying that's a little silly but if some peoples issue is just that the task is purely daunting it can possibly help.

I'm starting to wish the GMC Jam had it's own board on the forum. Theres IP.Board mods to hide entire boards when they are not in use, and it would definitely be nicer to have one central hub board for everything jam related here. Discussion thread, voting thread, maybe even the game threads themselves in a sub-board (You can move them to WIP/Completed after the jam). You also do a lot more in the way of stirring up excitement for the Jam, alter the forum header for a few weeks, mass send out PMs, etc. Go nuts.

[11clock]

I agree.
However, I would like to spread the idea that it doesn't have to be fair, because the community Jam is all about the game Making, not the game Voting.

While it's fun to make the game itself, I love comparing how well my game did to others. Also, because there are prizes, it HAS to be fair, even if the prizes aren't the main focus.

I'm not going to be joining the next Ludum Dare because it's impossible to play all of the games and vote fairly. It's not its fault, but I don't like it anyways.

[TheUltimate]

Please delete this double post...

Edited by TheUltimate, 19 August 2012 - 06:58 PM.

[TheUltimate]

I just barely managed to fit my votes and reviews in one post (darn character limit), so here are my “Best Of” ratings:

Best use of theme
1: Divided Existence
2: After it’s Over
3: Nostradamus
4: Virtual Trial
5: Insomnia

Best use of handicap
1: Terra Duo
2: Twice
3: After it’s Over

Best graphics
1: Hellscape
2: Chickens and Moles
3: Twice
4: Aliens Apart
5: Makaijima
6: Knockdown
7: Senseless

Best music
1: The Last Time Keeper
Dual Personality (Oh wait I can’t do that lol)
2: Hellscape
3: 9999
4: Makaijima
5: Nostradamus

Most unintentionally hilarious
1: Twice
2: Cheeseburger Quest

Most ragequit-inducing
1: UTWPVG
2: Cheeseburger Quest

Most replay value
1: Knockdown
2: Senseless
3: Conquerors
4: Stepsy
5: UTWPVG

Most Hilariously Epic Fail
1: Shoot the Pidgeon 3

Most potential if it had been less glitchy and/or longer
1: Dream State
2: Mundus
3: Project Solomon
4: Passive Aggressive People
5: Jetpack Hero

Most Innovative
1: Divided Existence
2: After it’s Over
3: Twice
4: Nostradamus
5: Stereoscopic
6: Mundus
7: A collection of thoughts regarding her

Top 15 games rated subjectively by fun factor
(As you can tell, I really like platformers.)
1: UTWPVG
2: Stepsy
3: Tangible Fortress
4: Hellscape
5: After it’s Over
6: Cheeseburger Quest
7: Divided Existence
8: Super Spaceship Escape
9: Asperous Flux
10: Knockdown
11: Morph Worlds
12: Makaijima
13: Everything’s a Lie
14: The Last Time Keeper
15: Senseless

[Robert3DG+]

Top 15 games rated subjectively by fun factor
(As you can tell, I really like platformers.)
1: UTWPVG
2: Stepsy
3: Tangible Fortress

<3

[cantavanda]

Most unintentionally hilarious
1: Twice
2: Cheeseburger Quest

Most ragequit-inducing
1: UTWPVG
2: Cheeseburger Quest

Top 15 games rated subjectively by fun factor
(As you can tell, I really like platformers.)
1: UTWPVG
2: Stepsy
3: Tangible Fortress
4: Hellscape
5: After it’s Over
6: Cheeseburger Quest
7: Divided Existence
8: Super Spaceship Escape
9: Asperous Flux
10: Knockdown
11: Morph Worlds
12: Makaijima
13: Everything’s a Lie
14: The Last Time Keeper
15: Senseless

Thanks dude!