Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 5 votes

Jam Suggestions

chat gmcjam

  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#1 GameDevDan

GameDevDan

    RIP current GMC

  • Global Moderators
  • 1453 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:57 PM

This is a topic to suggest / discuss potential changes to the jam. I will be adding suggestions that seem to get approval from a decent amount of people, or generate a large amount of discussion, in this first post.

 

Please note when suggesting things that the core values of the jam need to remain unchanged:

 

  • The whole GMC Jam is handled here, requiring uploads or voting on a separate site defeats the purpose of the jam here.
  • Monetary prizes are not allowed at all.
  • The jam should not be made too strict or serious in any way, it's always about having fun.

 

List of suggestions

 

General

 

  • Run a "review" jam after the game jam, where reviewers can get prizes (and then they vote in said topic for the eventual jam winner).
  • Encourage people to enter a lot longer before the start of the jam, with signature banners etc.
  • Create a jam "Hall of Fame" where the top X users from each jam are paraded around as encouragement to enter and win jams.
  • ...

 

Participating

 

  • Time period: Change how long the jam runs for from 72 hours to something else (preferably longer) to encourage more players
  • ...

 

Voting

 

  • Method: Use the 1/vote method, where users score points per voter equal to 1 divided by the position they came in the voter's list.
  • Method: Use modified instant run-off, where voting is carried out in rounds eliminating the worst entry in each round and handing their votes to the next preferred candidate left in the running.
  • Method: "group vote" http://gmc.yoyogames...24290&p=4581708
  • Method: Provide some method of balancing a voter's influence against the amount of games they actually played
  • Categories: Combine best use of theme & handicap into one thing
  • Categories: Scrap best devlog
  • Categories: Best "out of the box" entry
  • Categories: Best "newcomer" - for people who haven't entered the jam before
  • Categories: Most improved on previous entries
  • Time: Make the voting period dependent on the number of games, not just 15 days as it usually is.
  • ...

 

Prizes

 

  • Give third place a jam related prize, possibly picking a second handicap or otherwise game-affecting condition.
  • Better incentives to offer community prizes
  • ...

  • 7

See you all on the other side.

Back & share :)


#2 GameDevDan

GameDevDan

    RIP current GMC

  • Global Moderators
  • 1453 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:08 PM

My initial suggestions / ideas to get the ball rolling:

 

  • Decide on a new vote counting method, preferably similar to 1/vote rather than instant run-off. more info here.
  • Mix up the theme / handicap idea a bit. For example, entrants could have up to three themes to choose from selected by the previous 3 top winners. Combining all 3 into one game would part of the challenge. (not the best idea, but in general I think a little shake up could be cool)

  • 4

See you all on the other side.

Back & share :)


#3 Lukan Spellweaver

Lukan Spellweaver

    Gay Wizard Freak & mcmonkey's plaything

  • GMC Member
  • 3704 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:22 PM

-I like the voting method mrmagnus has been suggesting. It seems it would keep the voting simple, and the overall favourite would win.

-I like Dan's idea for a pool of themes/handicaps to choose from.


  • 1

DeEuDARh.pngi1SR21Q.png

Find me on Itch.io | GameJolt | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Ask.FM

 GMC Google Hangout | I liek monkehs

The GMC, here lies she. Kicked to the curb, with nary a word. She shall live on, though. Remain strong, bros.

Also: MIKE DAILLY TOLD ME TO UPDATE MY SIGNATURE


#4 the ch8t

the ch8t

    FlameFrog Games

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

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:50 PM

 

Mix up the theme / handicap idea a bit. For example, entrants could have up to three themes to choose from selected by the previous 3 top winners. Combining all 3 into one game would part of the challenge. (not the best idea, but in general I think a little shake up could be cool)

 

 

This sounds cool, but in my opinion part of the magic of the jam is that everyone shows a different take on the same theme.


  • 3

#5 mr magnus

mr magnus

    Viking King

  • GMC Member
  • 3739 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 24 May 2014 - 03:09 PM

I'll create a detailed rant on the voting issue a little later on, so expect a wall of text to appear sometime later during the week: for now I'm sticking with  a modified instant runoff that can produce N place winners.

I like however the idea Yal once created: That the first place winner would select a theme but both of the runner ups would each get to select a separate handicap. if an entry manages to follow both handicaps AND a theme, extra kudos to them.


  • 2

#6 Alice

Alice

    Toolmaker of Bucuresti

  • GMC Member
  • 1392 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 24 May 2014 - 03:55 PM

Yes, I like the idea of theme + double handicap. It would make 3rd place not feel so lonely, and that would be an additional challenge, giving another layer of fun! :3

Just two things: first, I suggest that should theme or handicaps would be contradicting each other, the person with lower place will need to choose again; since Dan gets all the info as the organizer, such checks should be doable.

Second, perhaps combine "Best use of Theme" and "Best use of Handicap(s)" into "Best use of Theme/Handicaps"? (or "Best use of conditions", or "Best adaptation to limitations", or whatever else?)
I think it would be especially convenient for yes/no handicaps that can hardly be rated varyingly in terms of their usage (vide "entirely 2D game"; are we supposed to rate graphics, simply?; or "at least 5 sounds"; if not for Blind Memory, I'd struggle to choose my pick since most games met the condition "well enough"). If these awards were combined, I'd make sure to give it to games that fulfill all conditions first, and only if none would fit all of them, I'd proceed to further places.

I'm not quite sure about "Best use of devlog" award; I had a bit of trouble with that one, especially since it somewhat obliged me to read devlogs that I didn't find particularly interesting during the Jam #13, and I kinda gave up on that at Jam #14. In fact, it seems some people skipped that part in their votes, anyway. ^^"

I'd say it totally should be replaced with "Best post-Jam feedback" award, except that cannot really be given during voting phase, now can it? :P
Still, I wouldn't mind some reviewing Jam directly after the game Jam, lasting for games voting period, with each entrant reviewing e.g. 5 Jam games of choice; that number is large enough that most good games should get some love, aside from clear winners, and at the same time low enough that people would find some time to write them, plus there should be enough games that have more to tell about them than JUST POP BUBBLES. ;)
(I guess there were review Jams before, but they were completely independent, weren't they? Snail Man would know...)
  • 0


LShy6C6.png


#7 Squarebit

Squarebit

    GMC Member

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

Posted 24 May 2014 - 05:26 PM

I don't like the idea of multiple themes -- kinda of defeats the purpose.

 

So here's my suggestion: Say top 3 of previous jam each decides a theme, which are all revealed to the community shortly before the next jam where we will vote for a theme.

The winning theme is then announced on jam start and this is the theme for the jam.

 

More community engagement and less chance of people dropping out "due to a bad theme" etc. as they'd know beforehand what the possibilities were..


  • 1

OjJP6YH.png

@sqrbt 


#8 Lukan Spellweaver

Lukan Spellweaver

    Gay Wizard Freak & mcmonkey's plaything

  • GMC Member
  • 3704 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 24 May 2014 - 06:07 PM

Okay, I like the JAM's current format quite a bit, except for the voting. Sure it's fun and everyone gets to do it their way, but how are the votes actually tallied? A lot of people just vote for the top 3 plus best ofs, so does Dan(or who ever is running the JAM at the time) do the rest?

 

More than one handicap could be cool, but a standard theme needs to be present for proper voting.


  • 1

DeEuDARh.pngi1SR21Q.png

Find me on Itch.io | GameJolt | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Ask.FM

 GMC Google Hangout | I liek monkehs

The GMC, here lies she. Kicked to the curb, with nary a word. She shall live on, though. Remain strong, bros.

Also: MIKE DAILLY TOLD ME TO UPDATE MY SIGNATURE


#9 mr magnus

mr magnus

    Viking King

  • GMC Member
  • 3739 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 24 May 2014 - 06:46 PM

Okay, I like the JAM's current format quite a bit, except for the voting. Sure it's fun and everyone gets to do it their way, but how are the votes actually tallied? A lot of people just vote for the top 3 plus best ofs, so does Dan(or who ever is running the JAM at the time) do the rest?

 

More than one handicap could be cool, but a standard theme needs to be present for proper voting.

Go watch the video I and Smash posted in the Jam topic or go to youtube and type "Alternative vote explained." the thumbnail has a lion in it.

If I understand the modified method then the simplest way to discover what game is in the Nth position you can discover who won, eliminate that one and redistribute the votes for that game, calculate for the 2nd place, eliminate the second place, calculate for third and so on until you reach N. It will always work as long as at least one voter votes for all games OR all games manage to make an appearance in any voters ranking, even if that voter only vote for the top X games and not all of them.


  • 0

#10 Lukan Spellweaver

Lukan Spellweaver

    Gay Wizard Freak & mcmonkey's plaything

  • GMC Member
  • 3704 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 24 May 2014 - 06:49 PM

 

<me waxing on...>

Go watch the video I and Smash posted in the Jam topic or go to youtube and type "Alternative vote explained." the thumbnail has a lion in it.

If I understand the modified method then the simplest way to discover what game is in the Nth position you can discover who won, eliminate that one and redistribute the votes for that game, calculate for the 2nd place, eliminate the second place, calculate for third and so on until you reach N. It will always work as long as at least one voter votes for all games OR all games manage to make an appearance in any voters ranking, even if that voter only vote for the top X games and not all of them.

 

I have watched the video, that is what I want them to do for the Jam. It seems to be the best route for this type of communal voting.


  • 0

DeEuDARh.pngi1SR21Q.png

Find me on Itch.io | GameJolt | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Ask.FM

 GMC Google Hangout | I liek monkehs

The GMC, here lies she. Kicked to the curb, with nary a word. She shall live on, though. Remain strong, bros.

Also: MIKE DAILLY TOLD ME TO UPDATE MY SIGNATURE


#11 Squarebit

Squarebit

    GMC Member

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

Posted 24 May 2014 - 08:57 PM

Several handicaps could be a cool idea, actually.

But it would be hard to judge and vote for that, because a gaming meeting all handicaps should technically be given a higher ranking, no?


  • 0

OjJP6YH.png

@sqrbt 


#12 TerraFriedSheep

TerraFriedSheep

    GMC Member

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

Posted 24 May 2014 - 10:26 PM

I personally feel the Jam should remain with only one theme, chosen by the winner of the highest ranked game that follows the theme from the previous Jam as it currently is. It's a good prize for first place without turning the Jam into a serious competition.
  • 2

#13 Smack Games

Smack Games

    Eliphingo!

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

Posted 25 May 2014 - 02:02 AM

I don't like the idea of multiple themes -- kinda of defeats the purpose.

 

So here's my suggestion: Say top 3 of previous jam each decides a theme, which are all revealed to the community shortly before the next jam where we will vote for a theme.

The winning theme is then announced on jam start and this is the theme for the jam.

 

More community engagement and less chance of people dropping out "due to a bad theme" etc. as they'd know beforehand what the possibilities were..

I like this except it should be more than 3 people deciding a theme because if everyone can see the 3 themes and know that one is going to be chosen they can just make a lucky guess and make a game before the jam starts  :turned:


  • 0

I used to have something here, but now I don't..


#14 ParodyKnaveBob

ParodyKnaveBob

    theUndiscovered

  • GMC Member
  • 1609 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 25 May 2014 - 03:21 AM

We could always try a variation or two on the idea of multiple themes and/or multiple handicaps. If it doesn't go well, the Jam could return to "normal" (insert laughter here) -- and even if it goes well, it wouldn't necessarily have to be done every time (just to keep its novelty).

For the idea of 1st picks theme, 2nd picks handicap, what's a good option to explore for the 3rd? That's something to discuss. You never know: a good idea now for 1st-2nd-3rd might be what convinces everyone to adopt this method in the future. Something else to consider, though: Right now, theme pick goes to the top person who used the theme. A good algorithm designer would do well to spell out in clear terms how the 2nd-picks-handicap rule (and 3rd-picks-??? rule) would take place when there's a hodgepodge combination of people using and not using theme/handicap/??? in the various top places. Or, to keep that part really simple, the 1st-2nd-3rd theme-handicap-??? pickers would have to qualify for all three theme, handicap, and theme. (As in, when a Jam ends, and the line-up is finished, the topmost entrant who met all three qualifications gets to pick theme, the second highest entrant who met all three gets to pick handicap, and the third highest entrant who met all three gets to pick ???.)

One possibility for distinguishing between 2nd and 3rd place picks: Perhaps they each pick a handicap, but one of them picks a positive and the other picks a negative -- as in, "you must have/do/etc. such-and-such" vs. "you must not have/do/etc. some other thing" ... This might be pointless, though, since nearly any rule can be worded as a positive or negative. Just brainstormin'. I can't say I like my own idea. $¦^ P

One idea that keeps floating through my head is that 3rd place could pick something whose presence is required somewhere somehow. An image, a character, a sound effect, a music track, a song,* a joke, a phrase, something. This could get abused for free advertising, though. Hmmmm. Therefore, not liking that a whole lot, either.

(*For those confused by my including "song" separately, songs have singing -- no lyrics means not a song. Nevermind that people use the term so loosely nowadays.)

Edit: Ah, another quickie idea could be that (of those who qualify) 1st place picks a main theme and handicap, 2nd place picks a secondary theme, and 3rd place picks a secondary handicap. The word secondary is up for discussion: does it mean less than the main theme/handicap in some way? does it mean nothing and just drop the word secondary altogether? If this system were used in the future, then in the case of absolute contradiction (like Alice's similar example), it'd be good if 1st's picks overrode 2nd's and 3rd's (and the organizer would just have to inform 2nd or 3rd, whoever contradicted, to pick again, sorry). ... Yeah, now that idea I actually like.

I agree with Snail_Man about the surprise announcement. $:^ ]

Edited by ParodyKnaveBob, 25 May 2014 - 03:31 AM.

  • 1
theUndiscovered ~ Brandon W. Horton ~ ParodyKnaveBob ~ $:^ J

#15 HayManMarc

HayManMarc

    The HayMan

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

Posted 25 May 2014 - 11:23 AM

I like the way the Jam currently is. Don't try to fix something that isn't broken. The voting system (mIRV) is the best option. This has been brought up time and again for every jam. If one does a little research on voting methods, its pretty convincing. One theme and one handicap is way less confusing than "3 themes with 2 possible handicaps so choose which one and hope you chose what other people like so they vote for your game," or "incorporate all 5+ themes and handicaps to make a hodgepodge game of weirdness that only a genius could pull off," or etc., etc.

Part of the fun is having a level playing field between beginner programmers and experienced programmers. This not only applies to programming, but to artwork, game design, level design, sound design, etc. Having one theme keeps the voting unified and singular. To be honest, I wasn't excited about implementing the handicap into the jam, since it seemed to me like it was just another theme. Also, it is said the handicap is optional, but an entry gets down-voted for not using it. "Optional" becomes "better use it or suffer the consequences." So, I'm for one theme, no handicap.

It would be nice to share the love on the theme/handicap picking. How many times did the same person get to pick a theme or handicap because they are such great game makers? That's awesome and all, but I think it would promote more fun and excitement if the theme picking could be a shared responsibility by, say, the #1 winner and a randomly chosen entrant, and/or a great reviewer. The group could then meet and decide on a cool theme. If we must keep the handicap, let 2nd and 3rd place meet with another randomly chosen entrant to decide on a cool handicap. This way, more people, experienced or not, get a chance at the theme and handicap.

Just my three-and-a-half cents worth. :)


Edited by HayManMarc, 25 May 2014 - 11:28 AM.

  • 0

sigpic1_gmc_archive.png

sigpic2_gmc_archive.png


#16 Alice

Alice

    Toolmaker of Bucuresti

  • GMC Member
  • 1392 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 25 May 2014 - 12:27 PM

Yes, I'm all for great reviewers taking part in picking theme/handicaps! :teehee:

Actually, maybe make it so that if given participant picked a theme or handicap the last time, they won't pick either for the next Jam and that privilege is passed to runner ups. In fact, since I would rather pick a handicap than a theme, I wonder if the first place holder wouldn't be the one to pick one of constraints (choosing if it's theme or handicap), and the second person would choose what remains (or, if we want to honour three top places, would decide which of remaining two constraints they want to choose). With such system, the top place is guaranteed to choose whichever constraint they want the most; and if one of runner ups has e.g. a theme they always wanted to use (that was taken by the first place, let's assume), they might very well pass it to further places, so that they wouldn't be affected by no-choosing-constraint-twice-in-a-row policy (that would provide some nice rotation; not that I have anything against Greenblizzard, but I wouldn't like him, or anyone else, choosing the theme twice in a row).
Additionally, I agree with the policy of people getting to choose constraints only when they met all (two? Three?) conditions; besides, I think that dealing with all limitations is something that might spark creativity rather than limit it. It's not like people don't take both theme and handicap into account now, as HayManMarc pointed out, except I actually like it - trying to fit in one way or another in limitations is part of all that fun! :3

Sadly, I still can't see any ideas for the third constraint I'd like. I wouldn't mind Theme + 2xHandicap myself, but maybe someone has something distinctive from both theme and handicap...? ^^" Also, while having 5 constraints would be perhaps a bit too limiting, I think there's still room for an additional condition; especially if the handicap wouldn't be like the one about trains (which I found marvelous, by the way) and more like the very general, yes/no conditions (like the two recent ones, which were very meh when it came to rating the use of handicap).

By the way, I don't recall people addressing the ideas of:
  • combining use of theme and use of handicap awards into "use of conditions" or something (motivated by the two recent handicaps, that were quite terrible when it comes to choosing "best use" of them; only Blind Memory saved me this time)
  • getting rid of devlog award (since quite a few people ignored that particular one, anyway)
  • possibly having reviewing Jam after the game Jam (or perhaps rewarding reviewers in other way, like Marc suggested above?)
I wonder what Dan will say about all that discussion. ^^"

Edited by Alice, 25 May 2014 - 12:29 PM.

  • 0


LShy6C6.png


#17 The M

The M

    Friendly Bush Thing

  • GMC Member
  • 320 posts
  • Version:GM8

Posted 25 May 2014 - 02:42 PM

As a participant I think it's way more exciting to not know the theme until the jam starts (this last jam I was completely taken by surprise, which was great). I also don't think it'd be good to have a vote for theme/handicap because that's the only guaranteed reward for winning the jam and, for me at least, one of the main reasons why I put a lot of dedication into my entry. I don't think I'd be nearly as motivated if I knew the theme would be chosen by a random participant, the best reviewer or by everyone together, etc. I do think the idea that the winner could choose what to choose is pretty good.

 

I'm fine with the jam as it is but I also wouldn't mind the idea of adding a third limiter as long as it's distinguished from theme and handicap (two handicaps could work but trying to follow two themes would just get messy), I have no idea what that would be though.

 

I don't really have anything to say about the voting. As long as the person with the most and highest votes wins I'm happy.


  • 1

znEVbqJ.png


#18 the ch8t

the ch8t

    FlameFrog Games

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

Posted 25 May 2014 - 03:54 PM

It would be nice to share the love on the theme/handicap picking. How many times did the same person get to pick a theme or handicap because they are such great game makers? That's awesome and all, but I think it would promote more fun and excitement if the theme picking could be a shared responsibility by, say, the #1 winner and a randomly chosen entrant, and/or a great reviewer. The group could then meet and decide on a cool theme. If we must keep the handicap, let 2nd and 3rd place meet with another randomly chosen entrant to decide on a cool handicap. This way, more people, experienced or not, get a chance at the theme and handicap.

 

Actually, I think the winners are already self-regulating the picking of the theme too many times in a row. Notice Diptoman picked the theme for this jam because Greenblizzard (on his great winning streak) decided to pass the love on to third place.

I also like that it is the winners who get to pick, because it is inspiration for me to try and win!


  • 1

#19 dadio

dadio

    Potato King

  • YoYo Games Staff
  • 2740 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 25 May 2014 - 11:41 PM

Ha! Didn't realise you got this topic up Dan! (^-^)b Hmmmm... k, interesting comments so far. I think the reason this topic has been posted at all if because of the relatively poor turnout in the most recent Jam. (Down quite a few entries from previous Jams). After reading the reactions from people about the "3 theme" idea, I agree that it's a bad idea (despite planting the seed in Dan's head, meowm). The intention (as someone mentioned) was to make 3rd place "less lonely" - it's always bugged me that only 1st & 2nd place really "get something" & 3rd place never does... I still think that. The other reason that seed was planted was because sometimes the themes seem awkward or limiting - no offence to the creator of the most recent theme... *but* memories fit that description, & I think that maybe a few possible entrants were turned off by that (or possibly myself, NAL & Dan were just lazy maggots that weekend, lol). But I figured a way to counteract "awkward themes" was to have the top 3 placings each choose a theme & then have a community vote on those themes to decide which is used. Seemed like a good idea at the time, but like I say, after reading the responses, I no longer like the idea. (Mainly because we lose that *surprise!* reveal value, & partly because it has a 2/3 chance of stripping the 1st place winner of their well deserved "theme choosing" prize. Hmmm... so what to do to improve the Jam? Well, personally, I'd like to see 3rd place get "something". I like the suggestion that 2nd place gets a "restrictive handicap" & that 3rd place gets an "additional element" - ie: 2nd= must be 8 colors, 3rd= must have jumping (or whatever). I really like that idea. (^-^)b It gives more incentive to reach the top 3. Other than that, I'd like to see more people offering prizes to further incentivise people to enter. Next time I'll throw in a few decent prizes! (^-^)b Now, I sleep, but I'll pop back on during the week if I have any ideas about ways to improve things. Zzzz.
  • 3

AczgxAZ.png5aj9t5.jpg
 


#20 TerraFriedSheep

TerraFriedSheep

    GMC Member

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

Posted 26 May 2014 - 09:20 AM

We need to be careful if we do let third place have some sort of input into the next Jam. Whether it is flagged as an optional extra or not, people inevitably take into consideration how well each game used the 'optional extra' and start basing their scores and votes upon that. So really it isn't an optional extra, not if the participant is aiming to get a higher placing. However having said that, an extra constraint doesn't necessarily mean more work for the entrant, it just has the potential to do so and therefore make gaining a position such as 3rd, harder.

Don't forget, third place gets a banner with their name and game on it to proudly display :thumbsup:
  • 2

#21 Lukan Spellweaver

Lukan Spellweaver

    Gay Wizard Freak & mcmonkey's plaything

  • GMC Member
  • 3704 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 26 May 2014 - 01:14 PM

I think 20th place needs more prizes! Yeah!

 

Back on topic:

I agree with TerraFriedSheep. If there is an option to help...Well "cripple" the game, and people don't use it, they will probably get harsher scoring. I say that as a reviewer, I know I would take this into account.

Also, maybe you guys should start looking at a calendar before posting the start/end times, trololol.


Edited by LukanSpellweaver, 26 May 2014 - 01:17 PM.

  • 0

DeEuDARh.pngi1SR21Q.png

Find me on Itch.io | GameJolt | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Ask.FM

 GMC Google Hangout | I liek monkehs

The GMC, here lies she. Kicked to the curb, with nary a word. She shall live on, though. Remain strong, bros.

Also: MIKE DAILLY TOLD ME TO UPDATE MY SIGNATURE


#22 TheUltimate

TheUltimate

    Life is Awesome

  • GMC Member
  • 1147 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 27 May 2014 - 01:34 AM

For a participant of the Jam, I think it's good fun as it is. A theme, a handicap... nothing comes to mind for a third place element so I'll leave it for now. There's a debate about the voting method each Jam; I have my opinion on that but I'll stay out of it this time.

 

What we need are more things happening outside the game-making part of the Jam.

  • Each discussion topic could have a list of games from the last Jam(s) that had a sizable post-Jam update. Most games are made for the Jam, but there are always a few enthusiastic devs that keep going. I've seen great games fade from the GMC because it's so hard to get attention after the votes are counted and everybody goes back to whatever they were doing.
  • Topics linked in the game post could be put into a big TXT file when the ZIP is made so reviewers can post in the topic too.
  • I don't remember if there was a Best Reviewer prize this time, but we could have a vote and a top 3 for that, sorta like the Review Jam. Anything for the reviewers really. It takes time (especially doing it for every game) and it's a huge part of the Jam too. But it's likely not the best idea because people might just vote for whoever voted for their game.

Just my two cents, let me know what you think. :)


Edited by TheUltimate, 27 May 2014 - 01:35 AM.

  • 1

image.png

- Awesome games from around here: Unlimited - Legena: New Dawn - PlanIt - Tinha War - CountAir Strike -


#23 smash ball

smash ball

    Volcanic Light

  • GMC Member
  • 2389 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 27 May 2014 - 01:50 AM

I'd say it totally should be replaced with "Best post-Jam feedback" award, except that cannot really be given during voting phase, now can it?

For the third Jam in a row, Detective Pixel wins "Best post-Jam feedback"

 

Obviously, we should start awarding more community prizes to 3rd place if we think that place is lonely (personally, I think 4th has it worse).  And by we, I mean you guys.

 

Third place could be awarded the knowledge of theme or handicap before jam start.


  • 1

#24 the ch8t

the ch8t

    FlameFrog Games

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

Posted 27 May 2014 - 02:17 AM

I think third place is fine. They get to stand on the podium, but they don't get to pick anything. So what? They get a sick banner and a bunch of recognition. If they REALLY want to pick the theme/handicap, they gotta win next time. That's my opinion, anyway. If we can't think of anything right off the bat to award them, we shouldn't stretch ourselves to make them feel less lonely.

 

On another note, (something theultimate said made me think of this) maybe we should have a dedicated jam website. Somewhere where we could keep track of a bunch of things. For example...

  • Hall of fame: previous ranking list of all jams (+best of's)
  • Countdown clock
  • Game list for current Jam (with download links?)
  • Homepage w/ Mission statement/what we are about
  • One of them twitter things that shows who is tweeting with #GMCJAM15
  • The theme/handicap of the current jam (if one is going on) in really big letters on the homepage
  • List of games with a post-jam update

even a free and crappy google sites page would hold this information in a neat and orderly way and make things a lot more cohesive.


  • 4

#25 Squarebit

Squarebit

    GMC Member

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

Posted 27 May 2014 - 07:27 AM

I think all of that could just be put on a post here on the forums.

Because:

 

Please note when suggesting things that the core values of the jam need to remain unchanged:

 

  • The whole GMC Jam is handled here, requiring uploads or voting on a separate site defeats the purpose of the jam here.

  • 0

OjJP6YH.png

@sqrbt 


#26 Alice

Alice

    Toolmaker of Bucuresti

  • GMC Member
  • 1392 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 27 May 2014 - 07:55 AM

Squarebit: the fact that whole Jam is handled here doesn't mean that it can't be "mirrored" somewhere else; additionally, while forum post(s) can *store* all that data ch8t would like to have (well, maybe except for Twitter feed?), it's likely to fall short on organisation of these.

I personally think that such dedicated site is a good idea, as long as it's more of a "mirror" of Jam data here rather than separate entity dedicated to handling Jam matters - people might very well post their games in games topic, and then someone else would be updating things on the site regularly; perhaps I could even add this on my personal website, once I actually make it? O.o"
  • 0


LShy6C6.png


#27 HayManMarc

HayManMarc

    The HayMan

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

Posted 27 May 2014 - 08:19 AM

Well, if this is something people are in to, I could dedicate a few pages on HayMan Quarterly.
  • 0

sigpic1_gmc_archive.png

sigpic2_gmc_archive.png


#28 Shadow_Lancer

Shadow_Lancer

    GMC Member

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

Posted 27 May 2014 - 08:21 AM

On another note, (something theultimate said made me think of this) maybe we should have a dedicated jam website. Somewhere where we could keep track of a bunch of things.

 

I have a web server and am willing to pay for a domain (note: www.gmcjam.com is available). I could setup a WordPress site or something with different users (I'm sure there is addons and such for a countdown clock).


  • 0

#29 Alice

Alice

    Toolmaker of Bucuresti

  • GMC Member
  • 1392 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 27 May 2014 - 10:21 AM

WordPress, you say? Maybe that could work, maybe not; I myself am personally inclined to building pages from general base (framework) rather than on existing specialised system, so that they could be more easily tailored to our needs (I guess it's about a difference between GameMaker and level editor/patching, maybe?). I'm not sure how advanced and easily modifiable WordPress is (especially I have no idea about plugins), so take that with a grain of salt.

Also, I just started a Google Doc document where we could discuss the website ideas (what it would contain, how it would be organised etc.); I think that with such document we might determine what we *want* that GMC Jam site to become, and based on that choose proper existing system (like Wordpress) to address our needs, or if none is sufficient, make one ourselves. I'm somewhat heavily in website development right now (working on Laravel+Angular website, so I will likely use one or both of these), so I suppose I could tell what would be sensible, and what is hard/impossible to add. We have about 2 months till the next Jam, and setting up WordPress system in case of emergency shouldn't last too long, so we've still got time to discuss ideas. Don't be afraid to dream big, people! ;)
  • 0


LShy6C6.png


#30 RekNepZ

RekNepZ

    GMC Historian

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

Posted 27 May 2014 - 02:30 PM

On a different note, I feel the amount of time given for voting is always either too short of too long. Maybe we should have the voting time depend on the number of games? eg. one day for every three games.


  • 3

AczgxAZ.png

^kept in my sig for historical purposes^


#31 ParodyKnaveBob

ParodyKnaveBob

    theUndiscovered

  • GMC Member
  • 1609 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 28 May 2014 - 04:46 PM

I appreciate what RekNepZ and Snail_Man have to say. A voting period somewhat proportional to the number of entries might be nice to consider.

 

For a participant of the Jam, I think it's good fun as it is. A theme, a handicap... nothing comes to mind for a third place element so I'll leave it for now.


~nodnod~

There's a debate about the voting method each Jam; I have my opinion on that but I'll stay out of it this time.


But Ult, the guy currently running the Jam wants to hear your opinion. $:^ b

What we need are more things happening outside the game-making part of the Jam.


Interesting. I'll toss in here that, like dadio and smash ball sorta mentioned, the prizes don't seem to be what they used to be. When I joined Jam #3, the prizes were insane! -- a mandolin ode, a custom banner (for anyone who requests, no matter the rank), official YYG gear (years before the store opened, ha), multiple "Let's Play" videos, tech work (such as an iOS port, a year of web hosting, a month of programming and art), etc.! I've been considering offering a surprise prize of my own in the next Jam; we'll just have to see what my time and resource capabilities are in a couple months. $;^ ]

Each discussion topic could have a list of games from the last Jam(s) that had a sizable post-Jam update. Most games are made for the Jam, but there are always a few enthusiastic devs that keep going. I've seen great games fade from the GMC because it's so hard to get attention after the votes are counted and everybody goes back to whatever they were doing.


I really like this! $:^ D Sure, a lot of games don't get worked on after a Jam. "I made my entry, that was fun, time to move on," kind of stuff. But others find inspiration in the Jam and springboard off that to keep developing their little gems they first crafted in those 72 hours.

Logistics: How much should constitute "sizable"? How long after the Jam should constitute "post-Jam"?

Topics linked in the game post could be put into a big TXT file when the ZIP is made so reviewers can post in the topic too.


Yes, that's also great. I felt I was going a bit overkill on my organization just so that I could go to each of the topics of games I had played so I could give my reviews (especially for those long, long after the Jam had ended).

I don't remember if there was a Best Reviewer prize this time, but we could have a vote and a top 3 for that, sorta like the Review Jam. Anything for the reviewers really. It takes time (especially doing it for every game) and it's a huge part of the Jam too. But it's likely not the best idea because people might just vote for whoever voted for their game.


Alice and kind of HayManMarc said something like this, too. 1. There's even a best devlog award, 2. this award could certainly encourage better reviews (which many gamedevs really appreciate), and 3. um yeah what ever happened to that GMC Review Jam? $:^ \ ...therefore, I think it's an interesting idea, anyway.

The big problem I see is just the fact that it comes after the voting period. (Alice also mentioned as much.) Otherwise, the potential issue of any entrant voting for a review solely based on the reviewer voting on the entrant surely would be counteracted by all the other people voting on whomever, and most likely a couple solid reviewers getting the main votes.

However, writing all that brings to mind more problems. What constitutes the best reviewer? The one who made sure to say some small thing about every entry? The one who wrote the most in-depth exegesis, nevermind that this was only done for one entry (and then a couple other entries just got quickie feedback)? Like the Jam games themselves, there are multiple reasons why a person would vote for this one or that one. I'm not sure how many people are really up for "reviewing reviews" as it were -- after all, apparently the GMC Review Jam (dedicated solely to this) withered away, eh? $:^ [ Furthermore, I could see this somehow .. slanting reviews, or influencing someone to rush reviews (for artificial quantity) or give fewer of them (for artificial quality).

As I essay this issue, I actually persuade myself away from officially rewarding reviewers. (However, if any community members offers to reward any reviewer(s), then hey, more power to ya. $:^ b heheheh ... This hearkens back to the community-oriented prizes issue.)

Just my two cents, let me know what you think. :)


I think you're one-and-a-half cents short of HayManMarc. Clearly.

$E^ b Regards,
  • 0
theUndiscovered ~ Brandon W. Horton ~ ParodyKnaveBob ~ $:^ J

#32 Coolbot4k

Coolbot4k

    The Ultimate Robot

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

Posted 30 May 2014 - 02:07 AM

Here's a little idea I had. (Though, I haven't read much of the topic so this may have been discussed already. Also, I haven't jammed in a while, so this might not even be pertinent anymore.)

What about a "binary" voting system? A voter can either vote favorably for a game (1), or simply not vote for a game. (0) Places are determined by tallying total votes for each game. I think it'd be easier for voters as it would take the hassle out of arbitrarily placing games, especially if they've played quite a few of them.

 

I also feel it'd be a bit more "communal" as each vote has equal magnitude. I think one of the biggest problems with voting is that games that aren't played are at a huge disadvantage, but with the large amount of games, this is pretty much unavoidable. I think this would be mitigated if votes are all given an equal "weight."

If you like a handful of games, you can vote for them all. If there's a game you'd really like to win, you can choose to vote for that single game only. Games you haven't played are unaffected. (Unless you still vote for them for some reason, but in that case you're a weirdo.)

Those who only had time to play a few games can vote relative to their "sample" of games. Those who take the time to play many would do the same thing on a larger scale.

I hypothesize that the overall favorable votes would would more or less reflect the most favored games. But, really, I have no clue if it's a good idea in practice. Just throwing it out there.
 


  • 1

#33 Alice

Alice

    Toolmaker of Bucuresti

  • GMC Member
  • 1392 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 30 May 2014 - 08:44 AM

Ummm, no. It's pretty much like Shadowrend's idea (give each game a rating), except it's reduced to nearly no granularity. If we want have further places ordered somehow, rather than have one large tie at the end, we need *more* granularity.

Currently I see mIRV, inverted place score and ratings average (or even ratings average w/ evil statistics! :teehee:) as equivalent, i.e. they have their advantages and flaws that makes each of them not absolutely worse than any other.

Also, a random idea just occurred to me: what if voter's power was proportional (or at least correlated) to the number of games he/she voted for and/or commented (even if it's just a few words)? In other words, the votes of people who appear to have played more games (assuming that they wouldn't vote or comment on a game they didn't play) are considered to be more "credible" (they did more research before voting) and worthy? It could soften the negative factor of games not being played, especially in systems based on sum of votes (mIRV, inverted place).
  • 4


LShy6C6.png


#34 Alice

Alice

    Toolmaker of Bucuresti

  • GMC Member
  • 1392 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 30 May 2014 - 04:12 PM

Hmm, you got me thinking a bit...

Let's say that "Well, I'd have to play at least 10 games for my votes to be even a bit powerful, so I won't vote at all." reasoning was in case of roughly 40 games, as it was the recent Jam. In other words, the person would like to have at least voting power of 25% (for maximum voting power of 100%), further referred to as TVP (Target Voting Power). Now, I don't know if people would consider VP = 25% as reasonable enough, but that's what I got from "at least 10 games" part, recent Jam and assumption you referred to directly proportional voting power.

If the time of voting would scale with number of games according to the formula from earlier:
DAYS = GAMES / (2 + GAMES/50)
or GAMES/DAY = 2 + GAMES/50
Then, assuming the voting power is directly proportional to number of games, said person would need to play TVP * GAMES/DAY games a day during voting period to reach the target. In other words, for TVP = 25% and GAMES/DAY = 4 (which seems to be the case for astounding 100 games in a Jam) that person would need to play 1 game a day. Not terribly difficult (especially since few games require more than half an hour to see most they have to offer), though I guess it would affect people who have *really* busy lives. O.o"

So, if we still want to include these really busy people, we might play around with the voting power function. For example, make it proportional to the square root of games visibly played (i.e. remarked in the voting post). In such case...
VP = sqrt(games played) / sqrt(GAMES) = sqrt(games played/GAMES)
games played/GAMES = VP2
games played = VP2 * GAMES
target games = TVP2 * GAMES = 1/16 * GAMES
(for TVP = 25%)

I think square root could be a good middle ground between reducing luck factor of people playing only a few games and having their votes matter somehow. After all, in such approach VP = 20% can be achieved with 3 games for 75 entries (which is below number of games a day); and having played 19 games gives half the maximum voting power; now it's not like it's so insignificant, is it? ^^"
  • 2


LShy6C6.png


#35 chance

chance

    GMC Member

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

Posted 01 June 2014 - 11:54 AM

Weighting systems based on metrics sometimes work -- but only if the metric is well-defined and the same for all participants.  But a metric like "number of games played" isn't well defined and can't be measured accurately.  Does playing for 30 seconds and then writing a few sentences count as "playing"?

 

I'd rather have votes (and comments) from a few people who played my game thoroughly, rather than lots of people who just had a quick look so they could say they played it.

 

A metric like "games played" might encourage some people to play (and review) more hastily just to gain voting power.  So their vote might count more, but actually mean less.


  • 4

#36 Alice

Alice

    Toolmaker of Bucuresti

  • GMC Member
  • 1392 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 01 June 2014 - 02:17 PM

I can see where you're coming from here, and I admit there are some... imperfections, but I suppose before we tell whether they're really that fatal (so much that they would make situation worse compared to present) we need to tell ourselves what we actually want to achieve.

First of all, about the definition of "number of games played" - yes, I'm well aware it cannot be measured 100% accurately; that's why I came up with "number of games person voted for and/or commented on" estimate, assuming that people wouldn't review or vote for games they didn't play at all. I suppose some dishonest voters could try to affect the scores e.g. by putting games they didn't vote for at the end of list, ordering them randomly, but I suppose in such case we should ask ourselves whether we trust voters here or not (or limit the constraint to "number of games person made meaningful comments about", possibly risking that people would feel bothered by such requirement). I'm not sure how about others, but for me GMC Jam is more of a happy community event rather than Serious Business™, and I just vote as I feel rather than calculate what would be best for my candidate, or something. Not sure how about others, but I don't get a feeling many people here consider Jam results to be so important that they would actively try to manipulate them.

Then, there's a matter of "playing for 30 seconds and then writing a few sentences". Well, I feel that whether it really is such a problem or not depends on what we want the votes to represent. Especially, do we want to reflect games' objective-ish quality that sometimes only dedicated players would discover, or rather we prefer to reflect people's general opinion about games. If we want the former, then of course, more thorough feedback should be rewarded... or we should just switch to judge system altogether, picking a group of members that are known for their dedication in reviewing. If we want the latter, however, we should just accept that if some game, even with lots of creative levels, astounding graphics etc., fails to pick player's interest within these 30 seconds, it probably means it wouldn't get popular among typical players, either. Again, I'm not sure how about others, but if I for some reason made a hasty playthrough across all Jam games, I'd make sure to play the games that I actually *did* find interesting.

The thing is, if that voting power modification would actually make people play more games, even briefly, it still is better if these people wouldn't play these games at all - because they do research they otherwise wouldn't, and are less likely to omit some gem that randomly ended up on late position. If they won't play more games after all, the omitted gem still isn't mistreated in voting as much as it would be with the current system, due to the lower voting power. Of course, people might not inspect some game as much as they would if voting power wasn't involved, but I feel that harm of having some games played thoroughly and others not at all is larger than having all games played briefly and giving them a chance, especially since unless some person is really terribly, terribly busy, they are likely to come back to games that caught their attention, anyway. I guess the question now is, how many people are so terribly busy. O.o"

Plus, having a narrower room to interest the player, Jam participants could learn the art of catching attention early; that one sure is handy when dealing with distributors or many other players later on, I guess? ;)

Bear in mind, I don't think my voting power system (in its square root version) is the best or one of the best there ever could be; I just think it does more good (especially when it comes to addressing the issue of games not being played having worse position) than harm compared to the system we have now. I suppose e.g. the metric like "thoroughness of reviewing" is even more elusive than "number of games played" and requires some judgement (and effort) of person who would rate that, said person being probably Dan.
Of course, if you people have better suggestions, I'm curious to learn about them. Just mentioning that even if idea is far from perfect doesn't mean it can't be an improvement. ^^"

Edited by Alice, 01 June 2014 - 02:17 PM.

  • 2


LShy6C6.png


#37 ParodyKnaveBob

ParodyKnaveBob

    theUndiscovered

  • GMC Member
  • 1609 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 03 June 2014 - 07:29 AM

I had a crazy idea the other day. It might stink. I don't know. I'd like for the insane statisticians around here to have a crack at it.

A person votes R rankings for N number of games which results in each of these games getting from this particular person (N + 1) / 2 - R score. That is...
Spoiler

(EDIT: Um, what's the point of a PRE tag if it's not going to PRE-format spaces? $F^ | ~edits to separate with dots instead~)

The goals in abstract:
  • all games start with 0 score
  • all games that don't get played stay at 0 score
  • the more games a player ranks, the more weight will be attached to the extreme scores at the top and bottom
  • it's technically possible for a game that doesn't get played to win (2nd or 3rd place anyway), but it would seem to require concerted effort for this to happen
  • yes, if a person only votes for 3 games, then one's #3 pick of awesomeness actually loses a point; but in the grand scheme of things, the people voting for 5, 10, 15, etc. games can more than make up for it; and in concept, that person's #3 game loses a point because its the lowest game .. played .. actually, that might be the flaw, that a person should really rank every game played (whether only 3 or all 100 of 'em) lest the top favorites lose any points .. but anyway, I was saying that person's #3 game loses a point for being lowest in rank, but if it's really that solid a game, then it has decent potential to end up in others' lists, too, only higher -- including, say, ranking #5 on a person's list who played 15 games, getting that same game +3 points.
Anyway, discuss, see if it has any other flaws, and see if that one mentioned flaw outweighs its good (of not punishing games when they're not played/ranked).

Regards,

Edited by ParodyKnaveBob, 03 June 2014 - 07:33 AM.

  • 1
theUndiscovered ~ Brandon W. Horton ~ ParodyKnaveBob ~ $:^ J

#38 dadio

dadio

    Potato King

  • YoYo Games Staff
  • 2740 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 04 June 2014 - 09:33 AM

Hmmm... gotta say I'm a lot less concerned with the voting specifics here than I am with revitalizing interest in the jam & increasing entrant numbers - we saw a pretty low turnout this Jam. I'd like to bump those numbers back up substantially for the next jam.

Is there anything we haven't yet thought of that we could do to *encourage more people to enter*?

 

A few ideas:

 

1. 1 month before the Jam starts, release good Jam date sig banners that people can add to their sigs to raise awareness of the upcoming Jam. (I think many people still aren't aware that it even happens - or only find out after the fact).

2. Lengthening the amount of time / days the Jam runs. (Perhaps many people are turned off by the fact that they feel they can't create anything worthwhile in such a short time-frame? Or have something to do one of those days so don't bother trying? If the Jam ran for 1 week, we (possibly) might see a lot more participation.

3. Creating some kind of "GMC Jam Hall Of Fame" section on the forums (or a dedicated site) where the top 10 winners games from every Jam are detailed & linked for people to see, read about & try out. This way new people can get a feel for what the Jam is about, & what's achievable. It would also give people something else to work towards - for their games to appear in this "Hall Of Fame", & "rewards" in some way more people (10) per Jam than the current 2.

 

Just some ideas. *shrugs*


Edited by dadio, 04 June 2014 - 09:34 AM.

  • 5

AczgxAZ.png5aj9t5.jpg
 


#39 Alice

Alice

    Toolmaker of Bucuresti

  • GMC Member
  • 1392 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 04 June 2014 - 10:38 AM

Good point about low turnout this time, especially compared to the previous Jam. On the other hand, I suppose there were many more joke games previous time, and I suppose lower number of games here might have been caused by the fact that people started forming teams, especially after it turned out Greenblizzard won second time in a row and they are unlikely to get really good placeon their own, or something. Or perhaps that was just a single occurrence? Granted, the four earlier Jams had turnout of 60-80 entries, so it's quite below average; but to tell whether the lower quantity caused higher quality, I'd need to play earlier games and do some statistics stuff, and after last reviewing marathon I don't quite feel like doing so... ^^"

About sigs:
I wonder if having some sort of customisable Jam sig creator could help with raising awareness? Possibly with colours change, additional text like "The theme is definitely PENGUINS" (or whatever else the user thinks) etc. I don't know how about others, but having more choice among Jam sigs (without resorting to making them from scratch) would make me more likely to use one.
One of possible customisable signatures, based on the current gear one, could have such parameters:
  • gear blend (currently green; possibly with that pink-ish sides)
  • ribbon blend (currently blue)
  • text colour (currently white)
  • inner picture (instead of Jam number; see 1st/2nd/3rd place pictures for reference)
  • optional text (e.g. "The theme is definitely PENGUINS"), though that once could be added in GM sprite editor or so ^^"
With something like that, we could not only make pre-Jam sigs, but also e.g. update them with our game pictures post-Jam, or simply use generic Jam sig with text "have you voted?" or something.

About Jam time:
Personally, I can't tell definite "yes" or "no" to that. One one hand, more time could mean more quality, on the other I found that having more time makes people more lazy. I suppose it makes larger timespan to enter for people who wouldn't have time at all in 3-days period, and people who need to sleep once or twice a 3 days aren't discriminated against, so I guess I would say careful "yes" to that. ^^"
(I wonder if it would work well with timespan from Sunday to Saturday; no matter where we start, week always has the same number of weekend days, and having it end on the night between Saturday and Sunday would mean that people who prefer to sleep have the whole weekend day for finishing touches, and those who prefer to rush till the very end, even if it means staying awake till, say, 5 AM, won't have a workday just ahead of Jammening)

About GMC Jam Hall of Fame:
I'm not sure it's something that needs to be integrated into GMC forum itself (though it might stay on some static HTML page somewhere, maybe?), but I guess having a dedicated website, as discussed at the end of previous page, would serve that purpose rather well, especially if that site was linked on the GMC Jam topics (kind of like countdown clock is linked now). I made a doc for ideas, but it seems only Snail Man added some feedback so far, so I thought I'd relink it, especially with hall of fame idea brought up. ;)
  • 2


LShy6C6.png


#40 the ch8t

the ch8t

    FlameFrog Games

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

Posted 04 June 2014 - 01:21 PM

Actually, on the note of the official banners.... this month marks the 1 year anniversary of the current logo. AND.....

 

(Nocturne said this in the logo competition discussion)

 

These new logos and banners will be used for at least the next four Jams, although it's possible that they will be permanent. We'll see how this competition goes, as it may be fun to run this every year and have a new logo and banners for every four Jams that we run. This is open for discussion...

 

So, as long as we are discussing, lets add this to the list of discussed topics. My vote is for another competition, not because the current logos aren't adequate (Actually, they are GREAT!) but because the logo competition was really fun.


  • 3

#41 ParodyKnaveBob

ParodyKnaveBob

    theUndiscovered

  • GMC Member
  • 1609 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 06 June 2014 - 07:59 PM

Hmmm... gotta say I'm a lot less concerned with the voting specifics here than I am with


Whoooaaaa, now. C'mon, dad... uh, dad, dad, dadio. You're clearly missing the entire well-established point of the Jam. ~shaking head~

Anyway, about these other, clearly less-significant things you said...

revitalizing interest in the jam & increasing entrant numbers - we saw a pretty low turnout this Jam. I'd like to bump those numbers back up substantially for the next jam.


Snail_Man and his chart might be right: this could be a mere fluke. (And frankly, the small number this time gives me a nudge to moreso want to enter next time. I almost entered this last time, but insane life stuff was happening very particularly on that weekend.)

1. 1 month before the Jam starts, release good Jam date sig banners that people can add to their sigs to raise awareness of the upcoming Jam. (I think many people still aren't aware that it even happens - or only find out after the fact).


I believe Alice and the ch8t had good comments here.

2. Lengthening the amount of time / days the Jam runs. (Perhaps many people are turned off by the fact that they feel they can't create anything worthwhile in such a short time-frame? Or have something to do one of those days so don't bother trying? If the Jam ran for 1 week, we (possibly) might see a lot more participation.


Alice had good comments here, too -- but I totally agree with Snail_Man. If you'll recall, the very first Jam, in attempt to improve on YYG's competitions, sought to shorten the length of time. (In the end, it only had 48 hours! Meanwhile, the Ludum Dare still does 48 hours these days, doesn't it? I've never looked into myself. Anyway, that's still pretty popular, eh?) Yeah, 72 hours is long enough to make me feel I'd actually have any time to devote to it (when I have any time at all ... which I've only entered once, but I'm almost certain I'll be entering the next one, yay!) -- yet is also short enough that it makes me feel like my content wouldn't pale too badly in contrast with everyone else who has scads of time to dump into their projects. One weekend just seems so perfect somehow. $;^ ]

3. Creating some kind of "GMC Jam Hall Of Fame" section on the forums (or a dedicated site) where the top 10 winners games from every Jam are detailed & linked for people to see, read about & try out. This way new people can get a feel for what the Jam is about, & what's achievable. It would also give people something else to work towards - for their games to appear in this "Hall Of Fame", & "rewards" in some way more people (10) per Jam than the current 2.


I like. Also see TheUltimate's comments about listing games which get sizeable post-Jam updates. The only real concern with which I replied to that idea was basically, "What constitutes 'sizeable' and 'post-'?" Also, listing who got the auxiliary awards would be nice, too -- "best use of," etc. Really, maybe even showing what they won; that could be incentive for at least some people to join in. $:^ ]

Thanks for stirring up the community. ~suddenly gets a mental picture of beating at a beehive with a stick .. a joystick .. ~

Regards!
  • 2
theUndiscovered ~ Brandon W. Horton ~ ParodyKnaveBob ~ $:^ J

#42 mr magnus

mr magnus

    Viking King

  • GMC Member
  • 3739 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 07 June 2014 - 12:27 AM

*Finger crack*

All right, first off I'd like to point out that I like a lot of ideas that people are throwing around here. I think that the Jam needs to extend a bit beyond "Prehype>theme guessing>Jam>voting>post jam discussion." 

Personally I'd like to see a GMC jam hall of fame topic where people can discuss and vote for what games they think are the best of the best from all previous jams and we'd place them up for viewing pleasure. Frankly I wasn't active when the Jam first started and only became a ''real'' member and a regular face in late 2012 when 7 or 8 jams had passed. I don't have a single clue what games where entered in the former jams and since there are a few hundred games I will never know what games where the best ones. note that not all great games end up ranking in the top places, we've had brilliant games ranking in at tenth that I'd love to know about. if we would make a small nostalgia thread to find and higlight great and cool moments from past jams not only would it help new users find cool stuff from other jams and spark an interest but it would also connect each jam together and make them feel like a single unity, and not just a quarter annual event that comes and goes. there are so many unused possibilities that can be had with the Jam from digging up golden moments and quotes, to give a shout out to great reviewers, to unofficial bets on who will win (ok, maybe not that one).
 
I'd also like to see better continuity and honorable mentions to those that actually keep going and further develop their Jam games when the jam is over as TheUltimate suggested. we always have a couple of entrants that do something to add to their game and we really should acknowledge them and give them an official thumbs up. thus we also increase the value of their work and perhaps more will be motivated to keep on adding to their game despite the jam having officially ended. 

 

basically what I am saying is that we need to make the Jam a more coherent, community wide event that is interesting for everyone. I feel that it should be an event that the entire community can enjoy and be together in celebrating even if they do not necessarily participate, vote or actively discuss. I feel like we need to somewhat decrease the focus on the games themselves and the competition element and instead focus on the community. there must be interesting facts, funny quotes, moments of jam greatness and such we can throw in there in order to really make the Jam for everyone and a "trademark" of the Game maker Community. If we could just increase the visibility of the jam, like creating a banner that would be displayed on the main page, It would already draw attention to it.

 

I however do not like the idea of lengthening the jam period. The whole point, imo, of the jam is to see how much you can create with as little as possible. I would be fine with a single competition that lasted for a while, but in 72 hours we can see who works well under pressure. It's fun, every time I try to further push myself and every time I have a blast trying to do a weeks worth of coding in three days, often failing terribly. The Charm is the short time.

 

 

Now, it did die out a bit, but here is my late rant on the voting discussion. warning, wall of text incoming. find your reading glasses.

Spoiler
 

 

so, those are my four cents, and a few dollars more.

This has been "voting politics and community events" with Mr. Magnus. Have a nice evening.


  • 5

#43 Yal

Yal

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

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

Posted 08 June 2014 - 09:01 PM

Lots of good discussion here... I'm a bit tired so this will probably sound more engrish than normally, but bear with me.

 

 

I like the idea with 2 handicaps and a theme (or 2 handicaps and 2 themes, or whatever). Spurs more creativity, and the 3rd place won't feel "lonely". And since we've had pretty lousy themes and handicaps the last few times ("The game must be 2D"? 99-something% of GM games are 2D) having more than one increases the chance that how well a game fulfills them just won't get "yes/no".

 

2 themes and 2 handicaps... the idea behind this is to "balance" themes vs handicaps, and possibly cause weird crossover games. But this is 4 limitations to select, so even after the top 3 does it someone else gotta select the last one. Who could that be?

  • One idea is that the one who finishes last gets to do this, but this could become highly arbitrary since most people won't vote for all games so it's up to chance who ends up there.

  • Another idea is that GameDevDan or Dadio or Mike Dailly or another GMC CelebrityTM decides this once all the other 3 have been decided, intentionally selecting something that leads to interesting results.

  • A third idea is that we have some sort of chaotic voting period.

Another problem is, who should decide themes and who should handicaps? I second Alice's suggestion here: the 1st winner gets to decide if (s)he wants to suggest a theme or a handicap, then the 2nd does, and so on. If both 1st and 2nd decides to suggest themes, then the 3rd placer can only suggest a handicap. (And I also agree with the rotation idea that nobody should get to select theme/handicap 2 jams in a row)

 

 

 

 

 

 

One thing I come to think about... a large part of the userbase are new users. In order to encourage them to participate, how about making a bunch of easy-to-use engines for a bunch of genres (platform, TDS, whatever) and allow anyone to base their jam game off those engines? It could maybe cause people to vote lower on games made using those engines, but it could enable new users to make better games faster than normally.


  • 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!


#44 TerraFriedSheep

TerraFriedSheep

    GMC Member

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

Posted 08 June 2014 - 10:48 PM

... I like the idea with 2 handicaps and a theme (or 2 handicaps and 2 themes, or whatever). Spurs more creativity, and the 3rd place won't feel "lonely". ... having more than one increases the chance that how well a game fulfills them just won't get "yes/no".
 
2 themes and 2 handicaps... the idea behind this is to "balance" themes vs handicaps, and possibly cause weird crossover games. But this is 4 limitations to select, so even after the top 3 does it someone else gotta select the last one. Who could that be?

  • One idea is that the one who finishes last gets to do this, but this could become highly arbitrary since most people won't vote for all games so it's up to chance who ends up there.
  • Another idea is that GameDevDan or Dadio or Mike Dailly or another GMC CelebrityTM decides this once all the other 3 have been decided, intentionally selecting something that leads to interesting results.
  • A third idea is that we have some sort of chaotic voting period.
Another problem is, who should decide themes and who should handicaps? I second Alice's suggestion here: the 1st winner gets to decide if (s)he wants to suggest a theme or a handicap, then the 2nd does, and so on. If both 1st and 2nd decides to suggest themes, then the 3rd placer can only suggest a handicap. (And I also agree with the rotation idea that nobody should get to select theme/handicap 2 jams in a row) ...

 


I've generally been of the opinion that two themes is a bad idea, as I like the idea that the winner of the Jam gets to select a theme and then sees lots of people make a game with their interpretation of that theme. It seems like a pretty cool prize without making winning a too serious-a business.

A few people have now mentioned that 3rd place is "lonely", but don't forget they do get a GMC Jam style banner with their name and game on it to display.

 

I'm really posting to say this though: if at some point in the future it is decided to add another handicap or something to similar effect (or 4 things need choosing as you suggested here), I don't think having last place choose something is a good idea. Let's not give any motivation to people to make deliberately bad games eh?

Having said I'm against an extra theme, your point about the mixture of outcomes with an extra handicap is making me see how it could be interesting to perhaps allow a 2nd handicap to be chosen (although I'm not fully persuaded yet). And finally I have left quoted the idea of letting 1st place choose whether to choose the theme or a handicap and then 2nd place chooses and so on as I think this is a good idea, if the setup changes as to require something like this :thumbsup:


  • 5

#45 HayManMarc

HayManMarc

    The HayMan

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

Posted 08 June 2014 - 11:45 PM

I pretty much agree with TerraFriedSheep. I'm for one theme and one handicap. If there must be two handicaps, then the entrant should get to choose between one or the other. Too many restrictions and/or additions and this event is turning into something else.
  • 2

sigpic1_gmc_archive.png

sigpic2_gmc_archive.png


#46 smash ball

smash ball

    Volcanic Light

  • GMC Member
  • 2389 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 09 June 2014 - 12:37 AM

I pretty much agree with TerraFriedSheep. I'm for one theme and one handicap. If there must be two handicaps, then the entrant should get to choose between one or the other. Too many restrictions and/or additions and this event is turning into something else.

Spoiler

 

Hmmm... gotta say I'm a lot less concerned with the voting specifics here than I am with revitalizing interest in the jam & increasing entrant numbers - we saw a pretty low turnout this Jam. I'd like to bump those numbers back up substantially for the next jam.

I've given multiple reasons before.  LD, school, other things I don't remember right now.

 

Furthermore, what's the ideal jam turnout? (for you, you being the reader.  You know, the freak reading this post?  Yeah, you.)  Or at least, the ideal jam turnout for next jam?

 

I'm not convinced that there should be two different handicaps.  Yes, you get a mix of games, but each person interpreting the theme and handicap in their own way is quite the mix.

 

One thing I come to think about... a large part of the userbase are new users.

How do we even go about defining "new users" or "userbase"?  In any case, where do you plan to draw in these "new users" from?


  • 3

#47 Lukan Spellweaver

Lukan Spellweaver

    Gay Wizard Freak & mcmonkey's plaything

  • GMC Member
  • 3704 posts
  • Version:GM:Studio

Posted 09 June 2014 - 12:47 AM

To be honest, I didn't enter the GMCJAM until the 12th one because I felt like I was a new user.

All those other games, with mine in the mix made me feel scared how people would react.

 

I don't think you'll be able to draw in many "new users" to a comp where quite a few GM & GMC regulars are.


  • 0

DeEuDARh.pngi1SR21Q.png

Find me on Itch.io | GameJolt | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Ask.FM

 GMC Google Hangout | I liek monkehs

The GMC, here lies she. Kicked to the curb, with nary a word. She shall live on, though. Remain strong, bros.

Also: MIKE DAILLY TOLD ME TO UPDATE MY SIGNATURE


#48 the ch8t

the ch8t

    FlameFrog Games

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

Posted 09 June 2014 - 01:41 AM

I'm not too concerned about JAM participation. The GMC jam is about GMC members getting together and having a good time. Jam's like the Ludum dare (with 2000+ entries) are for huge gaming compos, but the GMC jam should just be about comradery.

That's my opinion, you guys can decide if this is actually what we are all about.

 

Also, should we set up polls for the more disputed issues (such as multiple handicaps)?


  • 3

#49 HayManMarc

HayManMarc

    The HayMan

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

Posted 09 June 2014 - 02:23 AM

" I'm not too concerned about JAM participation. The GMC jam is about GMC members getting together and having a good time. Jam's like the Ludum dare (with 2000+ entries) are for huge gaming compos, but the GMC jam should just be about comradery. That's my opinion, you guys can decide if this is actually what we are all about."

Well said, and I totally agree.
  • 1

sigpic1_gmc_archive.png

sigpic2_gmc_archive.png


#50 the ch8t

the ch8t

    FlameFrog Games

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

Posted 09 June 2014 - 03:19 AM

Oh, good. I'm not alone.


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: chat, gmcjam