Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 11 votes

Gmcjam Future Discussion Topic


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
126 replies to this topic

#51 chance

chance

    GMC Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 8762 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:44 PM

...last Jam I spent a huge amount of hours and I only got though around a third or less of the games! Therefore I think the voting system has to change, so we get more people voting and playing, but still keep voting fair.

How would changing the "voting system" help? I've seen several comments like this... but no explanation.

The particular voting system (simple majority, SSE, ranked, double-inverted asymmetrical*, etc.) can't change the fact that members may only play a subset of the games. The solution to that is to ensure each member plays a different subset (i.e., the randomizer).


* OK... I made that up.
  • 0

#52 TheSnidr

TheSnidr

    Heavy metal viking dentist

  • GMC Elder
  • 3345 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:49 PM

I personally think that we should have a rule stating that you must leave a vote in order to be able to revieve votes. To be honest/blunt in my usual way, I'll admit that I thought this way during the voting period: "Maybe I should vote in the GMC Jam? But... why? It'll just give my opponents an advantage." forcing people to vote, however, could end up with tactical people voting games they figured would have small chances of winning up high to fill their vote quota as well as not voting their competitors' games high. I personally employed this tactic in the RPG4D competition just in case (because we were forced to vote in order to be able to win, and I was more focusing on winning than having fun).

Assuming people think as I did then, making votes obligatory might be a problem, especially with glorious prizes at stake (as at the RPG4D competition). I have no real idea on how to avoid this issue.

I actually like this proposition. Anyone who submits a game and don't vote don't rank at all. I don't like the idea of making people feel pressured to vote and make them feel bad if they don't. With this system we'd avoid that
  • 0

#53 Yal

Yal

    Even though the GMC may be gone, our love will prevail eternally

  • Global Moderators
  • 11774 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:55 PM

Gosh, very much activity at once!

Just in case anyone missed my edit of my previous post, here's it again:
Spoiler


Anyway, to reply to what happened while I was writing said edit:

I don't like the idea of making people feel pressured to vote and make them feel bad if they don't. With this system we'd avoid that

I'd personally say that an obligation is a good way to make people feel pressured, but we're moving away from "feeling vaguely bad about not appeasing other people due to your negligence" towards "feeling well-determined-reason-ishly bad about ruining your own effort with your negligence". Since people care more about themselves than other people they should be more inclined to vote; it's easier to judge the consequences of not voting/reviewing with this system since they affect yourself.
  • 0

- The above is my personal opinion and in no way representative of Yoyogames or the GMC, except when explicitly stated -

 

Open this spoiler for my games:

Spoiler

Some useful game engines, music and other resources at affordable prices:

My collection of game resources at itch.io

 

New user? Can't draw but want to look unique? You can request a new avatar in this thread!


#54 chance

chance

    GMC Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 8762 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:00 PM

I personally think that we should have a rule stating that you must leave a vote in order to be able to revieve votes.

How would this work in practice? I mean, when I vote, I have no way of knowing whether the recipient of my vote will vote himself (before the deadline). If he doesn't vote, then my vote is now worthless.

So your proposal would require a second round of voting, so I (and others) could re-cast our votes for someone else.

Alternatively, your system might require that no one enter the Jam unless he intends to vote. Or if he does enter, he must state up front that he doesn't intend to vote -- so nobody wastes their vote on him.

Is this what you want?

Edited by chance, 03 March 2013 - 02:26 PM.

  • 0

#55 Yal

Yal

    Even though the GMC may be gone, our love will prevail eternally

  • Global Moderators
  • 11774 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:03 PM

No, I want at least as many voters as entrants instead of the 25% ratio we had this jam. Assuming you write small reviews for your votes, they're not wasted (as you've given some quality feedback to someone), and, heck, if you intend to vote for a game above the others, you've clearly had some fun with it. Would you say that enjoying yourself is a waste? If so, get another hobby.

Votes voting on a disqualified game would just be ignored, so no need for extra round of voting. Since you vote for your favourite, 2nd favourite, 3rd fav etc game, assuming for instance that your 2nd place fav game gets disqualified, your 1st place vote stays a 1st place vote, your 3rd place vote becomes a 2nd place vote, and so on.
  • 0

- The above is my personal opinion and in no way representative of Yoyogames or the GMC, except when explicitly stated -

 

Open this spoiler for my games:

Spoiler

Some useful game engines, music and other resources at affordable prices:

My collection of game resources at itch.io

 

New user? Can't draw but want to look unique? You can request a new avatar in this thread!


#56 Yal

Yal

    Even though the GMC may be gone, our love will prevail eternally

  • Global Moderators
  • 11774 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:45 PM

but would it do so by making more people vote, or less people enter?

The expected result is the former of the two you cite: more people have admitted they didn't vote because they're lazy than any other single reason.

Personally, I don't mind either way; less entrants means less enemy games to outshine :medieval:
  • 0

- The above is my personal opinion and in no way representative of Yoyogames or the GMC, except when explicitly stated -

 

Open this spoiler for my games:

Spoiler

Some useful game engines, music and other resources at affordable prices:

My collection of game resources at itch.io

 

New user? Can't draw but want to look unique? You can request a new avatar in this thread!


#57 Nocturne

Nocturne

    Nocturne Games

  • Administrators
  • 25708 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 03 March 2013 - 04:11 PM

I seriously doubt that obliging those that enter to play and vote on the other entrants would work. I think it'll put a lot more people off than it attracts and (as Chance has pointed out) it seems more trouble and complication when it comes round to actually tallying up the votes and giving the results.
  • 1

U1FVsm3.png

40799.png


#58 greep

greep

    Menaces with Spikes

  • GMC Member
  • 2398 posts
  • Version:GM7

Posted 03 March 2013 - 04:25 PM

Should we change the review system for voting?

Yes, as I said, I think the biggest bane of the reviewing is that not reviewing everything is unfair, and people understand this (resulting in at least some not voting at all). So I think any system would need to have a proper "null vote": that is, not voting on something has no effect, rather than tanking someone's rating. After much discussion, I favor Mr. magnus' approach to the idea HERE:

http://gmc.yoyogames...dpost&p=4216280

Basically it combines two things: averaging the votes everyone gives, then dividing by the total number of voters (for that specific game) for a rating.

This has two benefits that my original idea did not:

A) Voters need not change their style at all! You can just do this and they would be none the wiser, everyone would keep on doing their voting in a giant list.

B)You can't purposely mess with the rating system, like you could in a "rate 1-100 and average the scores system". Your only "allowed ratings" (you don't give ratings, but this would be the mathematicaly equivalent in a list) are basically 100, 97, 94, etc down the list or something like that, with null votes at the end. So you can't just vote 100, 0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0.

I should note: This does have one "con" that 1-100 rating doesn't: If someone only votes on a few games, poor quality games still get a slightly biased higher rating. E.g., if someone only plays "crappy game 4000", their votes is still a "100/100" essentially. In a pure 1-100 rating system, this doesn't happen. If they only give one vote, their vote is, say "17/100" and just null votes.

My original idea Here:

http://gmc.yoyogames...dpost&p=4215060

Does not have this problem. It does, however, force people to change their voting to 1-100 ratings, and it does have potential for voting abuse (MEH, like it's going to happen).

I'd be happy with either method TBH. Although actually when I think about it, I'm leaning more towards my original idea than magnus' taking into consideration the above problem.

Second: Less important, but far simpler: I think a good idea would be a voluntary block system. Basically, all you do Nocturne is divide the games into 4 or 5 big "official" blocks. Voters can then choose to vote on some blocks, based on what others are voting on, to make it easy for people to ensure that everything gets a few votes. This at the very least ensures that every game will get at the bare minimum 3-4 votes, and you need to do nothing on your side but separate the games into the blocks. You can even be lazy about it, and just make like the blocks like "A-G""H-O""P-Z" or something.


Should we keep the Handicap? (from TheUltimate)

Yes, why wouldn't we? :o More restrictions are better! I'd honestly even want several handicaps, and you can choose some if I had my way!

Unless you want more people to slap together old games and pass it off as a jam entry :whistle:/>/> Jam entires should all be as unique as possible, unbased on anything you've done. Now, if you want to maybe remove the prize for handicap, that might be a good idea. Following handicap is usually a boolean.

Should we ban monetary prizes (or cap their worth)?

Nah, but I do think a cap would make sense, since giving too high a reward would make the jam too cut throat... so I dunno, like 5 buck rewards? xD

New Forum Structure. One topic for each entry?

:thumbsup:/>/>

Edited by greep, 03 March 2013 - 05:08 PM.

  • 1
GMC_Jam_11_SmallBanner_zps69ed8fdf.png
Spoiler

#59 makerofthegames

makerofthegames

    My last custom title

  • GMC Member
  • 7629 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 03 March 2013 - 05:27 PM

One topic for each entry is just a waste of time. Jammers are already allowed to post their Jam game in an actual game creation forum. Why be redundant?

Also lol greep
  • 3

#60 DanRedux

DanRedux

    GMC Member

  • GMC Member
  • 1404 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:15 PM

The voting solution depends on the specifics of the problem. Is it ok to have a "good enough" voting system that is "mostly" unbiased? Is it ok to have a "it might be fair" voting system where we just hope that people use the randomizing program? Personally, I don't think any solution is a real solution unless it is completely fair.

So to define the problem:
All entries must get the same amount of ratings to an acceptable amount of error. (~10% err)
There must be no bias in the order the games are presented.
It must be easy to download all of the games they should play in one large zip file.
People are encouraged to vote.
Has no additional difficulty or steps for voters, competitors, or staff. Just download, play, rate.

So, common solutions:
1) "Randomizer" program. The games will be untouched, in a folder. Even if only a couple of people skip the randomizing step, it still introduces a bias. I will point out, additionally, that if we use a randomizer it absolutely must be open source, and written in GM8.1 so that we can decompile it to check for any bias in its randomization algorithm.

2) Lower rewards. I really don't think this is a good idea at all. Having 80+ entries was great, you're only kidding yourself if you think you can the same numbers again without a good pool of prizes.

3) Different voting schemes. While nice, in theory, it doesn't actually solve the bias problems.

Therefore, the only solution that guarantees absolutely no bias and really encourages people to play and to vote is to generate a zip file containing a randomized list of roughly 10 entry games every single time the zip file is downloaded. The process would be as such: Click on the download link, the server combines several of the jam entries into a zip file and spits out that zip file to you, you play and rate those entries and give your reviews on them. If you are done with them, you can download another set of 10. Using such a low number prevents people from feeling overwhelmed at the huge amount, and making it completely random ensures that is no bias in the voting at all.

As for implementation... There are PHP classes out there designed to do just this, such as ZipStream. They are not much harder on the server than a regular download. The idea here is quite simple- Upload the .zip games to a folder, and when someone requests a download, grab a few random entries and provide a .zip containing them all. The catch here, however, is to do absolutely ZERO compression on the .zip, as it only contains already compressed archives and compressing them is what would be so cpu-intensive.
  • 1

#61 Sir

Sir

    Jedi Poodoo

  • GMC Member
  • 384 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:33 PM

Posted Image

I think everyone should pm their games to a set admin person, and that person should put the games on a site like this. Then you go to the site and it gives you 2 games to choose from, randomly picked from the set bracket of games. You download both, and can't vote until you did. Then you pick which one is better and it gives you 2 more games. :D
  • 0

For my sake, please RTFM.


#62 TerraFriedSheep

TerraFriedSheep

    GMC Member

  • GMC Member
  • 3273 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:48 PM

So we are now onto the discussion of "Should we change the review system for voting?"

Am I being stupid by not entirely knowing what we are saying here? "Review system for voting"- are we talking about changing the voting system, or talking about the requirements in order to be able to vote, or something completely different? Is it just that Sunday evening feeling kicking in for me? Some enlightenment would be nice :blush:
  • 0

#63 chance

chance

    GMC Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 8762 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:21 PM

Am I being stupid by not entirely knowing what we are saying here? "Review system for voting" <snip> ?

No, you aren't stupid. That choice of words is very awkward. I think what Nocturne wants to discuss is how to encourage more participation in both reviewing and voting.

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the review process, or the voting process. We just need to dispel the mindset that "unless I review every game, I cannot give a fair vote... so I just won't vote."

That viewpoint is destructive.

EDIT: clarity

Edited by chance, 03 March 2013 - 10:23 PM.

  • 1

#64 Nocturne

Nocturne

    Nocturne Games

  • Administrators
  • 25708 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:28 PM

Am I being stupid by not entirely knowing what we are saying here? "Review system for voting" <snip> ?

No, you aren't stupid. That choice of words is very awkward. I think what Nocturne wants to discuss is how to encourage more participation in both reviewing and voting.

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the review process, or the voting process. We just need to dispel the mindset that "unless I review every game, I cannot give a fair vote... so I just won't vote."

That viewpoint is destructive.

EDIT: clarity


Quite. And agreed. Everyone seems to be over-complicating things... Posted Image
  • 2

U1FVsm3.png

40799.png


#65 Sir

Sir

    Jedi Poodoo

  • GMC Member
  • 384 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:29 PM

Posted Image

And a review button! To make everything real damn easy for people. This would also encourage people to eat small bites by giving them 2 games at a time instead of FREAKING 80.
  • 0

For my sake, please RTFM.


#66 greep

greep

    Menaces with Spikes

  • GMC Member
  • 2398 posts
  • Version:GM7

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:06 AM

Am I being stupid by not entirely knowing what we are saying here? "Review system for voting" <snip> ?

No, you aren't stupid. That choice of words is very awkward. I think what Nocturne wants to discuss is how to encourage more participation in both reviewing and voting.

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the review process, or the voting process. We just need to dispel the mindset that "unless I review every game, I cannot give a fair vote... so I just won't vote."

That viewpoint is destructive.

EDIT: clarity


Well sure, but like I say, the best way to dispel that mindset is to actually make it so that reviewing only some games actually is fair. Sounds kinda obvious to me o.o
  • 0
GMC_Jam_11_SmallBanner_zps69ed8fdf.png
Spoiler

#67 TerraFriedSheep

TerraFriedSheep

    GMC Member

  • GMC Member
  • 3273 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 04 March 2013 - 05:54 PM

Am I being stupid by not entirely knowing what we are saying here? "Review system for voting" <snip> ?

No, you aren't stupid. That choice of words is very awkward. I think what Nocturne wants to discuss is how to encourage more participation in both reviewing and voting.

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the review process, or the voting process. We just need to dispel the mindset that "unless I review every game, I cannot give a fair vote... so I just won't vote."

That viewpoint is destructive.

EDIT: clarity


Gotcha' ;)

It seems to me that the original motives of the Jam have been lost in recent Jams, and it is shown through the demise in numbers of reviwers/voters. What were the original motives of the Jam?
By looking at the topic description of the original Jam idea topic, we have "A Community effort, by the people, for the people".

I personally feel this is still what the Jam should be about, but it seems that over time with the improvement in prizes on offer, people are aiming for these as opposed to getting to the core of some experimental game making and providing something to each other which is so valuble to game devs: feedback.

As for a solution to getting people back to giving this through reviews, well it's a tricky one. I don't think restricting peoples votes to their games if they havn't themselves provided 'x' amount of feedback and some votes to others is the right way to go. I'd rather people gave honest feedback and opinions as opposed to forced feedback, so the solution should at least be of a nature that still allows people to enter selfishly, only taking what they can get- but at the same time, praise should be given to those who do put in extra effort.
  • 1

#68 chance

chance

    GMC Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 8762 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 06 March 2013 - 12:43 AM

Playing all the games takes an enormous amount of time less than reviewing them all.

Not for everyone -- at least not for me. I can write a modest review in a few minutes. A more extensive review may take a little longer.

For me, playing the games is what takes time. I'm not a very good game player, so sometimes it takes me a while to figure out how to play. And if the game has any difficult jumping, or other reflex-related stuff... it may take me several tries to complete the easy levels.
  • 2

#69 makerofthegames

makerofthegames

    My last custom title

  • GMC Member
  • 7629 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 06 March 2013 - 12:55 AM

And if the game has any difficult jumping, or other reflex-related stuff... it may take me several tries to complete the easy levels.

Sorry about my Jam 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 games. :thumbsup:
  • 2

#70 TeamSteeve

TeamSteeve

    GMC Member

  • GMC Member
  • 1359 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 06 March 2013 - 01:03 AM

And if the game has any difficult jumping, or other reflex-related stuff... it may take me several tries to complete the easy levels.

Sorry about my Jam 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 games. :thumbsup:/>

I really like the reflex related stuff. That's what makes me keep playing.
  • 1

TeamSteeveBanner.png


#71 chance

chance

    GMC Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 8762 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 07 March 2013 - 02:03 PM

And if the game has any difficult jumping, or other reflex-related stuff... it may take me several tries to complete the easy levels.

Sorry about my Jam 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 games.

Well, you should be sorry. :dry: But apology accepted anyway.

Seriously, I've concluded that we may have already done what's needed -- namely, raising member awareness about the importance of reviewing/voting, even for a partial list of games. And reminding ourselves of the Jam's primary purpose: learning from reviews.

So if Mark adds the randomizer to each Jam .zip, and we keep discussing the importance of reviewing/voting (as many/few games as you're comfortable with), the problem may be solved.
  • 2

#72 makerofthegames

makerofthegames

    My last custom title

  • GMC Member
  • 7629 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 07 March 2013 - 03:46 PM

And reminding ourselves of the Jam's primary purpose: learning from reviews.

Huh, since when? The Jam's primary purpose has always been to get the userbase off of their lazy butts to actually make a game instead of just posting mindlessly. :P
  • 3

#73 TeamSteeve

TeamSteeve

    GMC Member

  • GMC Member
  • 1359 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 07 March 2013 - 09:50 PM

And reminding ourselves of the Jam's primary purpose: learning from reviews.

Huh, since when? The Jam's primary purpose has always been to get the userbase off of their lazy butts to actually make a game instead of just posting mindlessly. :P/>

I think both are just as important as each other. :thumbsup:
  • 1

TeamSteeveBanner.png


#74 makerofthegames

makerofthegames

    My last custom title

  • GMC Member
  • 7629 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 08 March 2013 - 05:18 AM

That would imply making a game is as important as reviewing a game. I don't really see how that would work. :confused:
  • 0

#75 TeamSteeve

TeamSteeve

    GMC Member

  • GMC Member
  • 1359 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 08 March 2013 - 05:50 AM

That would imply making a game is as important as reviewing a game. I don't really see how that would work. :confused:/>

Why? I really have no idea why that couldn't work. :confused:
I'm very confused.
  • 0

TeamSteeveBanner.png


#76 makerofthegames

makerofthegames

    My last custom title

  • GMC Member
  • 7629 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 08 March 2013 - 05:59 AM

Well, you see, one of these things takes 72 hours.
  • 0

#77 Swifty

Swifty

    Shadow

  • GMC Member
  • 516 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 08 March 2013 - 07:47 AM

That would imply making a game is as important as reviewing a game. I don't really see how that would work. :confused:/>

If no one reviewed any of the gmcjam games I don't think many people would participate, so I'd say it's just as important ;)

Swifty
  • 0

Don't be Afraid to Fail.


#78 Yal

Yal

    Even though the GMC may be gone, our love will prevail eternally

  • Global Moderators
  • 11774 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 08 March 2013 - 07:50 AM

That would imply making a game is as important as reviewing a game.

I think that playing and making a review is a lot less work than making a game. However, the important thing is that with multiple reviews, you get lots of constructive feedback, letting you improve a lot on things you do 'wrong' without knowing they're 'wrong', such as unfair level design etc.

Now, the Jam isn't optimized for feedback, really:
- Time constraints mean you have to cut corners, possibly resulting in bad design or annoying parts
- Theme encouragement means that many people make something out of their comfort zone, which means they're likely bad at making a game of this type since it's the first time they do

Considering that, the "the purpose of the Jam is to get feedback" idea doesn't sound like the best theory since we have two arguments against and, well, none for. Well, I could likely dig up an argument for it if I really had to :P


Which means the purpose of the jam is more likely to "get people to stop procasting and actually produce something", as stated above.
  • 0

- The above is my personal opinion and in no way representative of Yoyogames or the GMC, except when explicitly stated -

 

Open this spoiler for my games:

Spoiler

Some useful game engines, music and other resources at affordable prices:

My collection of game resources at itch.io

 

New user? Can't draw but want to look unique? You can request a new avatar in this thread!


#79 greep

greep

    Menaces with Spikes

  • GMC Member
  • 2398 posts
  • Version:GM7

Posted 08 March 2013 - 03:14 PM

Edit: might have been good of me to actually have read the post above me first >.>

Edited by greep, 08 March 2013 - 03:20 PM.

  • 0
GMC_Jam_11_SmallBanner_zps69ed8fdf.png
Spoiler

#80 chance

chance

    GMC Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 8762 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 09 March 2013 - 12:20 AM

Now, the Jam isn't optimized for feedback, really:
- Time constraints mean you have to cut corners, possibly resulting in bad design or annoying parts
- Theme encouragement means that many people make something out of their comfort zone... <snip>

I'd say just the opposite. The time constraint and the theme encourages innovation and creativity -- not polish. That's the whole point! :wink:

Sure, we must "cut corners" in a 72-hour Jam... but that's good. It keeps the focus on creativity.

Lots of levels, polished artwork, and "completeness" are great. But the priority should be on innovation and imagination. I'd like to see more reviews reflect this.

Edited by chance, 09 March 2013 - 12:48 AM.

  • 3

#81 paul23

paul23

    GMC Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 4147 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:56 PM

Playing all the games takes an enormous amount of time less than reviewing them all.

Not for everyone -- at least not for me. I can write a modest review in a few minutes. A more extensive review may take a little longer.

For me, playing the games is what takes time. I'm not a very good game player, so sometimes it takes me a while to figure out how to play. And if the game has any difficult jumping, or other reflex-related stuff... it may take me several tries to complete the easy levels.

That's where cheats come in handy - to test games.
  • 0

#82 greep

greep

    Menaces with Spikes

  • GMC Member
  • 2398 posts
  • Version:GM7

Posted 11 March 2013 - 07:22 PM

It appears that this topic may have run its course. Nobody else seems to be posting anything new. Perhaps Nocturne should come and look at all the suggestions that are here, and pass his verdict.

If people do have more to say, they really should.


I think people are talked out.. there's really not much else to say that wasn't said in jam #9. I still stand by that I don't think people are thinking very far ahead tho. Saying everything is fine and there will always be people who review every game might be entirely reasonable... until there's 130+ entrees. I know at about 120 I'd crap out.

Edited by greep, 11 March 2013 - 07:23 PM.

  • 1
GMC_Jam_11_SmallBanner_zps69ed8fdf.png
Spoiler

#83 speedchuck

speedchuck

    Because why not?

  • GMC Member
  • 545 posts
  • Version:GM8.1

Posted 11 March 2013 - 08:51 PM

Saying everything is fine and there will always be people who review every game might be entirely reasonable... until there's 130+ entrees. I know at about 120 I'd crap out.

If that were the case, I'd probably team up with someone and review half of the games.
  • 0

 SghHBkv.pngimage.png


#84 speedchuck

speedchuck

    Because why not?

  • GMC Member
  • 545 posts
  • Version:GM8.1

Posted 11 March 2013 - 08:54 PM

What is the point of the randomized ZIP contents? All this does is create a different order in which games are given more exposure than others.

Not if the reviewer uses it. Then each of the games will have an equal chance of early exposure to that particular reviewer.
  • 1

 SghHBkv.pngimage.png


#85 Cakefish

Cakefish

    I Shot The Sheriff

  • GMC Member
  • 1477 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 12 March 2013 - 04:46 AM

Possibly slightly off-topic but am I right in thinking that this one will take place on the last weekend of April? Please say I'm wrong because I have an exam right after that weekend on the Monday so yet again wouldn't be able to enter :(
  • 1

 2a7ubuv.jpg


#86 chance

chance

    GMC Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 8762 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:33 PM

Possibly slightly off-topic but am I right in thinking that this one will take place on the last weekend of April? Please say I'm wrong because I have an exam right after that weekend on the Monday so yet again wouldn't be able to enter :(/>

Bummer... but I think you already know the answer. The last two Spring Jams (Jam #2 and Jam #6) were held the last weekend of April.

Of course, Mark could always decide to change that, if enough members had conflicts.
  • 0

#87 Yal

Yal

    Even though the GMC may be gone, our love will prevail eternally

  • Global Moderators
  • 11774 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:06 PM

Of course, Mark could always decide to change that, if enough members had conflicts.

Or maybe all members with conflicts [assuming there's few enough of them] could PM him, ask really nicely, and be provided with the theme a bit early, then be forced to PM back a game 72 hours later or else be disqualified?

What is the point of the randomized ZIP contents? All this does is create a different order in which games are given more exposure than others.

The idea is that the END USER randomizes the ZIP contents before playing the games, which means everyone gets the games in a different order.
  • 1

- The above is my personal opinion and in no way representative of Yoyogames or the GMC, except when explicitly stated -

 

Open this spoiler for my games:

Spoiler

Some useful game engines, music and other resources at affordable prices:

My collection of game resources at itch.io

 

New user? Can't draw but want to look unique? You can request a new avatar in this thread!


#88 speedchuck

speedchuck

    Because why not?

  • GMC Member
  • 545 posts
  • Version:GM8.1

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:17 PM

I wouldn't really mind the jam being pushed forward or backwards a week. The spring jam always has a lot of scheduling conflicts due to final exams and the like.

Me neither. I have two final exams on the Friday of the Jam and two more of them on the following Monday. I'd hate to do poorly on my exa- I mean, uh, not enter the Jam.
  • 1

 SghHBkv.pngimage.png


#89 Yal

Yal

    Even though the GMC may be gone, our love will prevail eternally

  • Global Moderators
  • 11774 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:50 PM

Another idea would be to make a game during 72 hours less than 72 hours, wait until the theme is announced, and then spend whatever time you saved from the 72 hours on making the game fit into the theme, then submit it in the last second and pretend you worked during the Jam time instead of studying for the exams. It's not like anyone can tell... :whistle:

You'll have a hard time getting the handicap in, though.
  • 0

- The above is my personal opinion and in no way representative of Yoyogames or the GMC, except when explicitly stated -

 

Open this spoiler for my games:

Spoiler

Some useful game engines, music and other resources at affordable prices:

My collection of game resources at itch.io

 

New user? Can't draw but want to look unique? You can request a new avatar in this thread!


#90 Cakefish

Cakefish

    I Shot The Sheriff

  • GMC Member
  • 1477 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 12 March 2013 - 04:04 PM

Poor Cakefish... Every jam he comes in right after saying "Argh! I missed it again!", or right before saying "Argh! I can't do it!" I think he has a curse Posted Image

I wouldn't really mind the jam being pushed forward or backwards a week. The spring jam always has a lot of scheduling conflicts due to final exams and the like.


I was able to take part in the very 1st Jam but fate has been against me for the rest that followed. Yeah, it's either I've forgotten it was on and missed it by a few days, or there's some sort of university degree-related exam/coursework-deadline that prevents me from taking part. EVERY SINGLE TIME! Oh well, maybe just maybe the summer one - I can dream! Posted Image

A week earlier would solve the exam timetable conflict. All my exams are over a small period from 29th April to 15th May.

Edited by Cakefish, 12 March 2013 - 04:07 PM.

  • 0

 2a7ubuv.jpg


#91 Yal

Yal

    Even though the GMC may be gone, our love will prevail eternally

  • Global Moderators
  • 11774 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 12 March 2013 - 04:07 PM

...but I'll probably forget knowing this curse I have...

Try changing your computer desktop background to a image with "REMEMBER THE JAM THIS TIME!!" text on it? Go do that right away before you forget again.
  • 0

- The above is my personal opinion and in no way representative of Yoyogames or the GMC, except when explicitly stated -

 

Open this spoiler for my games:

Spoiler

Some useful game engines, music and other resources at affordable prices:

My collection of game resources at itch.io

 

New user? Can't draw but want to look unique? You can request a new avatar in this thread!


#92 greep

greep

    Menaces with Spikes

  • GMC Member
  • 2398 posts
  • Version:GM7

Posted 12 March 2013 - 06:18 PM

To bee honest, I think that we should try and steer people away from reviewing and rating ALL the games.

We use the SSE voting system after all, which has the benefit of accepting and calculating positions based on all votes by all people without the need to to vote for each and every game.

I'd be happy with more voters playing fewer games. It would mean less pressure on everyone to get through all the games, and most of them would get at least ONE play or a review anyway as everyone will choose different games to play...

AND those that have the best dev blogs, presentation and ideas will be those that get the most plays, which is a good way to get people to try harder too... Crap looking games, games with no dev blog, and games that don't use the theme or are obviously not original or well thought out will get less plays.

It may seem a bit harsh, but lets face it, if this thing is to grow we will need to accept the fact that not everyone can (or wants to!) play and review every game. I'd be happy with between 3 and 10 votes and reviews from everybody if it means I get loads more people playing and reviewing.

The key here is that SSE permits this!!!


What I really don't get is why people keep saying SSE is even remotely fair. You even said it yourself in the latter part of your post, it's very much dependent just on showiness.

After looking at how ludum dare does their voting, I see they do it precisely my suggested way: 1-X ratings exclusively and N/A for judging. They've been doing this for over a decade and have several hundred entrants, so I see nothing but pride as a reason for not using a proven method. Whereas our method seems to be having problems with a mere 90 games :rolleyes:

Edit: And I think they have a particularly awesome way of getting people to vote: They have a separate ranking just for how many games you judge. Sort of like the "I voted" buttons, only taken to 11.

Edited by greep, 12 March 2013 - 06:29 PM.

  • 0
GMC_Jam_11_SmallBanner_zps69ed8fdf.png
Spoiler

#93 Cakefish

Cakefish

    I Shot The Sheriff

  • GMC Member
  • 1477 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 15 March 2013 - 03:13 AM

...but I'll probably forget knowing this curse I have...

Try changing your computer desktop background to a image with "REMEMBER THE JAM THIS TIME!!" text on it? Go do that right away before you forget again.


Yes sir, I'll try my best :D
  • 0

 2a7ubuv.jpg


#94 HayManMarc

HayManMarc

    The HayMan

  • GMC Member
  • 1776 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 16 March 2013 - 02:06 AM

Interesting topic. Nice new forum for jam-only stuff. Good thinkin'! :thumbsup:

Here's my biggest beef with voting and reviewing: It takes too much time, of which, I don't always have. Also, a level of burnout happens to me, as I imagine it does to others. 80 games is a lot of games. Don't get me wrong. I love experiencing the many different Jam games made, but it really takes a toll. By the time I spend 72 hours brainstorming a game, then the next week or two playing and reviewing all the games that I can, in any spare time that I can find, I'm way past burnout and want just-about-nothing to do with Game Maker, my computer, and the internet. (Maybe not quite that bad, but close - you get my drift.) So, here are some of my suggestions.

If you kept the participant's entries in a single topic (the way it has been done so far), then everyone could be required to review the next 1 to x (however many you/we decide) number of games in the topic listed after their own. Entrants at, or near, the end of the topic would just continue from the beginning of the topic. That way everyone gets at least one review. Those who refused to review, are disqualified from receiving any Official GMC Jam prizes (picking the next theme or handicap, a yo-yo, a t-shirt, etc. ).

You could also restrict voting in this way, too. As someone suggested in an earlier post, have voting done in "blocks". Where ever you happened to be located in the 'Games Topic' would be your designated 'block'. Say, every 10 entries is a 'voting block'. Those within that block are allowed to vote ONLY WITHIN THEIR BLOCK. Each block would have a winner. More winners = more happy people. (Just one way of doing it.)

OR... have a second round of voting on the winners of those 'blocks' by all the participants.

OR... allow open voting on all entries, but require voting within these 'voting blocks' as well. If you didn't vote in your 'block', you are disqualified from receiving Jam prizes, like I wrote above. (Personal note: If you can't spend a small amount of time voting and reviewing, you probably shouldn't even be participating. After all, it's about the community, right?)

OR... some other way that I'm not thinking of at the moment. :P

Not voting and not reviewing will not disqualify you from the Jam and receiving a placing, it would only disqualify you from the prizes.

These are just some ideas for you all to shoot down. :P Basically, what I'm trying to remedy, is the massive amount of game playing and reviewing that I feel I must do in order to feel like I'm being fair. If this can be downsized, I believe it would increase participation with voting and reviewing.
  • 1

sigpic1_gmc_archive.png

sigpic2_gmc_archive.png


#95 chance

chance

    GMC Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 8762 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 16 March 2013 - 12:01 PM

If you kept the participant's entries in a single topic (the way it has been done so far), then everyone could be required to review the next 1 to X (however many you/we decide) number of games in the topic listed after their own. Entrants at, or near, the end of the topic would just continue from the beginning of the topic. That way everyone gets at least one review.

This would work fine. And actually, each game would receive X reviews. My only concern is making it mandatory. This could have unintended consequences of discouraging participation (as Nocturne and others have observed).

On the other hand, if some players only had time to write (say) X reviews, this is a perfectly acceptable way to choose them. Or they could choose the first X games from their "individualized randomized list". Either way.
  • 0

#96 chance

chance

    GMC Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 8762 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 16 March 2013 - 01:39 PM

We could just encourage in the jam topic that it's okay to not play all the games before voting. That way maybe people won't feel as pressured to get it all done.

I think that's the single most important thing -- regardless of what other features are added (such as the individualized randomizer).

In the end, it matters less how people choose which games to review, and whether it's 3 games, 20 games, or every game. As long as everyone makes an attempt to review as many as they're comfortable with, we'll get the Jam back on track.
  • 2

#97 sp202

sp202

    Wannabe Indie

  • GMC Member
  • 384 posts
  • Version:Unknown

Posted 16 March 2013 - 02:17 PM

<SNIP>


I totally agree with this, although 10 seems a bit much for a standard that (most) people are supposed to meet, how about 5? Well, either way, I think we should try this out next jam and if people don't like it or it doesn't function as intended, we can just revert back to the old system or a better one the jam after the next.

Edited by sp202, 16 March 2013 - 02:18 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image

Windows||HTML5 Online||HTML5 Download

A physics-based puzzle game with magnets.


#98 HayManMarc

HayManMarc

    The HayMan

  • GMC Member
  • 1776 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 17 March 2013 - 01:23 AM

You could just make it so a person could enter and win 1st place with a great game, but they wouldn't receive any prizes unless they vote and review X amount of games. I think this is pretty close to how it is now.
  • 0

sigpic1_gmc_archive.png

sigpic2_gmc_archive.png


#99 Ruub

Ruub

    Finn The Human

  • GMC Member
  • 762 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 21 March 2013 - 10:19 AM

I didn't read everything because inspiration struck!

 

Forcing/punishing people to review sounds like a bad plan :D Though how about REWARDING THEM <3

 

BEST REVIEW AWARD!

 

Perhaps, and this might be risky :c, winner is choosen by rep he got for the review?... meh...

 

Or how about the best-prediction award... "I think this game will win because... = review?" with ofcourse a little risk as "because all the other games stink like pickles."


  • 0

#100 Ruub

Ruub

    Finn The Human

  • GMC Member
  • 762 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 21 March 2013 - 10:25 AM

Oh! even more inspiration and no edit button was found.

 

This might sound a little crazy... but... to make voting be less of a burden, and maybe even a little fun! Some peeps could team up and make a gamemaker engine for voting, It would be online, with the new networking ;), and perhaps even send data to these forums. I'm just puking ideas here, maybe it's silly.


  • 0