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?
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
/>/> 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? xDNew Forum Structure. One topic for each entry?
Edited by greep, 03 March 2013 - 05:08 PM.