54 réponses à ce sujet

[rogueknight333]

The Spring 2014 ABC cycle, such as it was, is now winding down (more or less, a late submission or two might still be coming), so I suppose we now need to be considering the future of this challenge (having been reminded that completing a playable module in a short space of time is indeed a challenge). At least a couple of people are interested in future challenges, and I am willing to organize another (also if somebody else wants the job of organizing it that can be negotiated). Before doing so, however, I would appreciate some feedback on the following questions:

 

1) Are you interested in participating in the next challenge? 

 

If we have a reasonable number of prospective participants we could get the next cycle started as early as next month. Otherwise I would be inclined to give it a bit more time.

 

2) What time limit do you think desirable?

 

The original ABC challenges seemed to indicate that one month was too short a time to reliably produce modules of reasonable quality. This cycle seemed to indicate that, in a verification of Parkinson's Law, two months do not obviously work better. Any thoughts on an optimal time limit?

 

3) How should themes/adventure seeds be chosen?

 

Rolo has set things up so I can now make polls on the new vault. Would people prefer to use polls? Stick with the organizer choosing a theme by rolling dice? Some third alternative? Should I make a poll on this question?

 

4)  Should the points system I set up for the most recent cycle be scrapped? Modified in some way? What alternative system of rewards could be employed?

 

There was already some discussion of this in this thread, so you may want to read that first. This was the only part of my original organizational scheme that was noticeably controversial so I would interested in any further thoughts now that people have had some limited experience with it.

 

The system was rather ad hoc (like pretty much everything else I did to organize this), so I am certainly not committed to its being optimal. To explain the reasoning behind it, the system was intended to allow some flexibility in enforcing the challenge rules, while still not ignoring them entirely. If someone insisted, for example, that they absolutely required 15 MB worth of CC to realize their concept, I did not want to have to say, "No, that's against the rules, you can't be part of the challenge." This is just being done for fun, so it did not seem reasonable to be that rigid. On the other hand, if rules are not enforced, one is in effect, and quite unfairly, punishing those who follow them, so I wanted to provide some recognition for those who made the effort to abide by the restrictions. Ideally an alternative to the current system would also serve to strike a similar balance.

 

5) Should people submit individual entries or first submit their modules to the organizer so they can be made into a combined entry?

 

There was some controversy about this in the original ABC thread. I am now inclined to the opinion that a combined entry would be more desirable, since, in addition to some of the advantages I referred to in that thread, I think it would provide an additional incentive to submit entries on time, as failing to do so might mean missing out on the big initial release. Of course, if that were done as the norm, anyone who really wanted to submit a separate individual entry instead would be allowed to do so.

 

Any thoughts on these questions, or on other relevant questions I did not think to raise, are welcome.

 

Alternatively, if you do not really care and are happy to submit to whatever organizational scheme I arbitrarily decree, that is certainly a situation I can work with.

[MagicalMaster]

As a general note, I'm finishing balance testing on my ABC submission which is obviously rather "late" at this point, for reasons that'll become clear in this post.

 

1) Are you interested in participating in the next challenge?

 

Yes, but I doubt I'd be interested in participating until August.

 

2) What time limit do you think desirable?

 

One month.  Frankly, I didn't even begin working on my module until a week into the second month.  I think we should be doing one month cycles but encourage people to continue the same module for multiple months if they wish to make a longer module (or make individual chapters to a story in multiple modules) -- but they need to wrap things up and put a bow on it each month.  I don't think giving people two months realistically is ever going to be better than giving people one month two different times -- and I think it'll be much worst most of the time.  It is so easy for people to plan out something way beyond their ability to do in a given timespan and a one month deadline helps avoid that far better than a two month deadline.

 

3) How should themes/adventure seeds be chosen?

 

On a personal note, I don't hugely care as long as I'm not the one choosing them.  I have plenty to work on as it is, the main draw of the ABC for me is trying to come up with something for an idea I'm not working on already.

 

The random choosing is probably ideal so that people don't skew the polls toward things they already have good ideas for, but a poll would also be acceptable.

 

4)  Should the points system I set up for the most recent cycle be scrapped? Modified in some way? What alternative system of rewards could be employed?

 

Scrap the early reward at a minimum.  I wound up falling behind near the end due to some unexpected RL issues that popped up and left me short on time.  When it became clear I wouldn't be able to get the full points by having it in 3 days early my thought process quickly transitioned to "Well, then screw it -- if I'm going to lose points no matter what then what's the point?"  The only reason I'm even bothering to finish it now is due to the overall lack of submissions -- but given the fact I no longer give a damn about the timing I've gone back and revamped some stuff that I could live with but wasn't happy with.

 

I'm unsure about the whole points thing in general too -- the problem is that it leads to ranking and judging points on the points value.  If one ABC module scored 400 and another stores 380, most people will probably try the 400 point one first -- which again hardly seems fair to people who participated but wanted the 15 MB CC or whatever.  It's not like we have hundreds of modules averaging out across a spectrum.

 

As an alternative, what about a "medal" system?  For example, imagine the following are "violations":

 

- Being up to a week late

- Using more CC than described

- Using less than 2 themes

- Being buggy

 

Violate 1 or less and you earn a gold medal.

 

Violate 2 or less and you earn a silver medal.

 

Violate 3 or less and you earn a bronze medal.

 

Violate all 4 and you get a participation medal.

 

So you can still "break the rules once" and earn a gold medal, but each subsequent violation drops you another category.

 

5) Should people submit individual entries or first submit their modules to the organizer so they can be made into a combined entry?

 

I think the biggest problem with a combined submission is people updating their modules after the initial submission.  If people A, B, and C submit modules and player A finds out there's a bug in his module...what happens then?  He submits the updated version to you and you update the super pack or something?  How often are you willing to do that?  How often will you check for updated versions?  Because all three might be finding a bug a day for several days which might mean you update the thing three times a day for four days or something.

 

I personally don't like the idea of finding a bug, finding it asap, and then having to cross my fingers that no one downloads the ABC pack until you update it.

 

On the flip side there's the question of "preserving" the original ABC submissions for posterity, even if the authors would want players to play the most up-to-date version of their module.  So maybe it makes sense to have a "Legacy" pack of the original submissions and an "Current" pack of the bugfixed/improved stuff?

 

I'm not sure, just brainstorming on this last topic, will think about it some more.

[rogueknight333]

I think we should be doing one month cycles but encourage people to continue the same module for multiple months if they wish to make a longer module (or make individual chapters to a story in multiple modules) -- but they need to wrap things up and put a bow on it each month.  I don't think giving people two months realistically is ever going to be better than giving people one month two different times -- and I think it'll be much worst most of the time.  It is so easy for people to plan out something way beyond their ability to do in a given timespan and a one month deadline helps avoid that far better than a two month deadline.

 

 

The problem is that one month seems to be too short a time to make a complete module of any quality (at least for most people most of the time), while two months will likely just encourage over-ambitious projects or overconfident and inefficient work habits, so it seems like we have a problem either way. Possibly we would want to set things up so that one must release a rough draft in a month, but then has some additional time to polish up the module for a final release? This would seem to be similar to what you are suggesting with your notion of continuing a project over multiple months. I am not certain exactly how to manage the logistics of such a procedure, though. Perhaps something would be sent to the me personally at the one month mark, but I wait to actually release it to the general public until some future point, leaving time to send an updated version in the interim?

 

 

I'm unsure about the whole points thing in general too -- the problem is that it leads to ranking and judging points on the points value.  If one ABC module scored 400 and another stores 380, most people will probably try the 400 point one first -- which again hardly seems fair to people who participated but wanted the 15 MB CC or whatever.  It's not like we have hundreds of modules averaging out across a spectrum.

 

Points are awarded to the author, not the module itself, for things that mostly have no intrinsic connection to the quality of the module (e.g., there is no reason why a module submitted late would necessarily be worse than one on time), so it would seem bizarrely illogical for someone to judge the modules themselves on the author's points. That is not to say that people cannot be illogical, but I am not sure why you so strongly expect it in this case?

 

Possibly if the points system were used it might be better if they were awarded for a sufficient variety of things that there was no realistic way one author could get them all, so that would not even be a goal.

 

 

As an alternative, what about a "medal" system?  For example, imagine the following are "violations":

 

- Being up to a week late

- Using more CC than described

- Using less than 2 themes

- Being buggy

 

Violate 1 or less and you earn a gold medal.

 

Violate 2 or less and you earn a silver medal.

 

Violate 3 or less and you earn a bronze medal.

 

Violate all 4 and you get a participation medal.

 

So you can still "break the rules once" and earn a gold medal, but each subsequent violation drops you another category.

 

The general idea seems reasonable, and has the advantage of simplicity. It also has the disadvantage of simplicity, in that it cannot allow for as many factors, or for gradations in them (e.g., I am not sure submitting a week late should be equivalent to submitting a day late, or that exceeding the CC restrictions by 0.5 MB should be equivalent to including the entire CEP). I do think that anyone who avoids any rule violations at all should have a higher reward than someone who violates at least one, which means we would need to either introduce something like a "platinum medal," or make the scheme even simpler with fewer "must have" requirements, or use a completely different award scheme. 

 

I think the biggest problem with a combined submission is people updating their modules after the initial submission...

 

That is definitely an issue (though not a new one, as it also applied to the original ABC cycles). On the other hand, it might provide some additional motivation to make sure one's initial release was not too buggy. The question is whether the undoubted disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

 

My tentative plan would be to release the submissions on a single vault page, but with separate entries for the individual modules, simplifying updates. One could then either send me a fixed up version to update the main vault page, which would have the downside that one would have to wait until I got around to doing it (which hopefully would not be too long, but it is not as if I would be checking my email for updates every 15 minutes), or else make a separate page under one's own control that could be updated as one pleases, and to which I would include a link on the main ABC page in due course (or both). In either case, one could leave a comment on the ABC page indicating that one's module is bugged, and that players are advised to wait for a forthcoming update, without that affecting anyone's ability to download other modules.

 

I'm not sure, just brainstorming on this last topic, will think about it some more.

 

 

Same here, no final decisions will be made until there has been more time for any other interested parties to weigh in.

 

[Grymlorde]

I would like to participate on a regular basis. I don't care at all about points or limits on CC. I'm looking for adventure seeds -- something to inspire me, to help me break out of this rut I've been in for the past 11 months.

 

In my professional life, I teach software teams how to increase both productivity and quality. One of the techniques is to clearly identify the success criteria for the initial release and each increment thereafter. Another is to make each release 'useable', that is provide at least one working function. In our case as an example, the objectives could be:

 

First release:

 

• PC Gets main quest/objective
• Overcome primary obstacle
• Get reward

 

The second release could be:

 

• Add secondary and tertiary obstacles to primary quest/objective
• Add twists & surprises
• Fix bugs & incorporate feedback

 

And the third and final release could be:

 

• Polish, fix bugs,  and incorporate feedback

 

This leads to a 3-part release cycle which could be 3 months if desired.

 

Again, these are just some ideas.

[rogueknight333]

Thanks for your interest, Grymlorde. It is definitely a good idea when making a module in a limited time to go about in an organized and disciplined way, and I think it would be helpful in principle to divide the cycle into an initial building phase, followed by a "polishing up" phase of some sort, but I am not certain how that could be effectively organized at this point, especially considering that ideally the ABC modules should be basically playable upon being released for general download, least prospective players start ignoring them as likely to be incomplete, buggy, etc. If I did what I suggested above, for example, having players send me their submission privately some time before the public release, I might be able to playtest them, confirm that they were not too bugged to be played at all, and even give some feedback to the authors in good time. That could work fine if I only got a couple of short modules. On the other hand, if there was a cycle in which, say, 5 longish modules were submitted, it would obviously be more difficult for me to get to them in a timely manner.

[CaveGnome]

1) Are you interested in participating in the next challenge? 

 

2) What time limit do you think desirable?

 

3) How should themes/adventure seeds be chosen?

 

4)  Should the points system I set up for the most recent cycle be scrapped? Modified in some way? What alternative system of rewards could be employed?

 

5) Should people submit individual entries or first submit their modules to the organizer so they can be made into a combined entry?

 

 

1) If next ABC is a July/September thing, maybe... (hobby time very limited now).

 

2) I like the 2 month system, but you have a valid point with the "Parkinson law".

Maybe we can use two simultaneous sets of rules for what we build with the same seeds: for exemple one month for a "one area" module without CC, and 2 months for those who want more complex modules.

 

3) i like the poll system, but understand this is more work for the ABC moderator and don't like a complete random system. Perhaps something inbetween: Everyone submits inspiration seeds (or/and use some CC poll seeds), moderator takes the first 10 seeds and throw 1 to x d10 to choose the winner seed(s).

 

4) I like the point system, but prefer a medals approach (we could have custom medal logos !).

 

5) A combined ABC vault page grouping only info (delivery time stamp, name, size of original entry, points/medals) and links to every personal ABC newvault entry, and contestant obligation to keep the "time stamped" original ABC entry (in parallel with more advanced/polished ones if available) ?

 

 

 

Just some gnomish ideas... But well, I can live long and prosper with the current system too ;-)

 

 

 

CG

[henesua]

My take is that the time frame is much too long and that this creates a few problems.

 

The challenge should be that no one can spend more than 24 hours on the first draft of the module. This however is not enforceable since we aren't doing a game jam style project in which we all get locked in an area for 24 hours with nothing but laptops and the toolset. Furthermore some people (like myself) don't often have 24 hours to dedicate within a whole month toward an ABC module so even with a month it is not possible to complete a modest project. BUT when you are told you have a month to do something you look at how many weekends you have and figure that you'll maybe sacrifice all of those weekends to all-nighter style creation fests and then get overly ambitious (another problem I suffer from).

 

This is why I considered suggesting the ABC as a thing to do last year. I had been working forever on massive projects, and was burned out on that. I failed to participate however because as much as I wanted to I couldn't motivate myself to do a non-ambitious project. I kept trying to bring all the systems I had made for PWs into a single player module, and then I started thinking outside the box in terms of how to reorganize plot structure and replayability etc…. and well … I have about 10 interesting, unfinished module ideas sitting in an archive. I got so embarassed about my inability to cut loose from all of that and just make a HAKless module with crappy scripting but a fun story that… well I'm just working on a big project right now until I can get this out of my system and do something small, reckless and fun.

 

I think what I would need to get over my over-ambition is the following:

no custom content allowed

(self restrict myself to a non-replayable module offerring at most 15 minutes of game play)

Schedule:

1 week to produce a rough draft

1 week review period with other builders

2 weeks more to polish and finish the little module

 

In other words I need to be held to a really tight schedule in which I have no chance to develop new features - only game content (this is incidentally also a problem for me in PWs where I can't stop developing new features)

[Shadooow]

Maybe it would be better to start with starter module with content that is allowed and disallow any rule modifications etc. because thats what peoples needlessly losing time the most (from my observation of the ABC challenge).

[MagicalMaster]

The problem is that one month seems to be too short a time to make a complete module of any quality (at least for most people most of the time), while two months will likely just encourage over-ambitious projects or overconfident and inefficient work habits, so it seems like we have a problem either way. Possibly we would want to set things up so that one must release a rough draft in a month, but then has some additional time to polish up the module for a final release?

 

I don't think most people are going to need an entire month to polish the module unless that rough draft has literally had no testing go into it or something.  Could possibly do something like one month to build and two weeks to polish.

 

Points are awarded to the author, not the module itself, for things that mostly have no intrinsic connection to the quality of the module (e.g., there is no reason why a module submitted late would necessarily be worse than one on time), so it would seem bizarrely illogical for someone to judge the modules themselves on the author's points. That is not to say that people cannot be illogical, but I am not sure why you so strongly expect it in this case?

 

Because presumably we're going to have a list of modules with a point value next to each of them in each ABC thread?  And it's the module itself that's being judged (number of themes, amount of CC, bugs, etc)?  People generally like shortcuts to judge stuff too, happens all the time from game modules (what's the score?) to MMO characters (what's your item level?) to RTS games (what's your APM?) to card games (what's your win rate?).

 

I mean, right now a lower score could mean less themes, bugs, or late -- impossible to tell but you do know it scored less for SOME reason.  Which probably means it's worse.

 

Possibly if the points system were used it might be better if they were awarded for a sufficient variety of things that there was no realistic way one author could get them all, so that would not even be a goal.

 

I can only speak for myself but you saw how despondent I got when I realized I couldn't get the full points for ABC and release something whose quality I was content with.  Such a system would only frustrate me more and is turning the points into a full blown calculation rather than encouragement.

 

The general idea seems reasonable, and has the advantage of simplicity. It also has the disadvantage of simplicity, in that it cannot allow for as many factors, or for gradations in them (e.g., I am not sure submitting a week late should be equivalent to submitting a day late, or that exceeding the CC restrictions by 0.5 MB should be equivalent to including the entire CEP).

 

Do those gradations actually tell us anything useful?

 

Does it really matter if it's 3 versus 5 days late?

 

Does it really matter if you use 4 extra MB or 8 extra MB?

 

Does it really matter if it has 5 bugs or 7?

 

And do we want to judge someone more harshly for any of those?  Do we want people to think less of Bob because he used 5% more CC than Sam?  This is supposed to be about encouragement and fun, not judging Olympic gold medals.

 

I do think that anyone who avoids any rule violations at all should have a higher reward than someone who violates at least one, which means we would need to either introduce something like a "platinum medal," or make the scheme even simpler with fewer "must have" requirements, or use a completely different award scheme.

 

Why?

 

Again, encouragement and fun: if someone has an awesome idea but needs some extra CC and fulfills every other requirement, why not let them earn the best medal?  Otherwise we're immediately consigning them to second class status.  Hell, you only need a 90% to earn an A in school and getting a batting average of 0.37 would make you the best batter in baseball history.  Cut people a little slack to encourage people to participate and do something they enjoy.  They still can't go and ignore the themes, use extra CC, release late, have tons of bugs, and still earn the best medal or something.

 

Think of it like cleric alignments if you want -- you can be one-off from your deity.

 

especially considering that ideally the ABC modules should be basically playable upon being released for general download, least prospective players start ignoring them as likely to be incomplete, buggy, etc.

 

Completely agreed.

 

This is why I considered suggesting the ABC as a thing to do last year. I had been working forever on massive projects, and was burned out on that. I failed to participate however because as much as I wanted to I couldn't motivate myself to do a non-ambitious project. I kept trying to bring all the systems I had made for PWs into a single player module, and then I started thinking outside the box in terms of how to reorganize plot structure and replayability etc…. and well … I have about 10 interesting, unfinished module ideas sitting in an archive.

 

While I'm not *that* bad, as I mentioned earlier this is the general reason I like the ABC.  Doing something relatively simple and run in a short time frame.

 

Maybe it would be better to start with starter module with content that is allowed and disallow any rule modifications etc. because thats what peoples needlessly losing time the most (from my observation of the ABC challenge).

 

Two thoughts.

 

1, one of the things I enjoy about the ABC is the ability to test out a few specific ideas in an isolate context that it still content people can play and enjoy.  Like the boss mechanics in Siege of the Heavens, the weapon scripts and death system in Peremptory Summons, etc.  Or to challenge myself to do new things that I want to try but have a hard time justifying in current projects.

 

2, what exactly does "no rule modifications" even mean?  Do healing potions need to be available?  If so, how many?  What item properties are allowed?  Are items with unique powers allowed?  Are class specific items allowed?  Etc.  You'd really need to define that carefully.

[rogueknight333]

1) If next ABC is a July/September thing, maybe... (hobby time very limited now).

 

I am thinking about starting a new cycle in August. Could still do July instead if a lot of people eager to get started turn up.

 

3) i like the poll system, but understand this is more work for the ABC moderator and don't like a complete random system. Perhaps something inbetween: Everyone submits inspiration seeds (or/and use some CC poll seeds), moderator takes the first 10 seeds and throw 1 to x d10 to choose the winner seed(s).

 

Something like that might be possible, though I am not sure I want to add too many additional complexities to it. Incidentally, anyone who has adventure seed ideas can suggest them for addition to the lists, irregardless of how we end up picking items off them.

 

The challenge should be that no one can spend more than 24 hours on the first draft of the module. This however is not enforceable since we aren't doing a game jam style project in which we all get locked in an area for 24 hours with nothing but laptops and the toolset...

 

Part of the problem is we do not really know how many hours people have to spend actually working in the toolset. So if we have a one month time limit that might mean about 12 hours of work for Builder A, since he can only spare several hours each weekend to work on his project, but as many as 60 hours for Builder B, since he is able to set aside a couple hours of work every day. In other words, "one month" (or whatever the time limit is) can translate into radically different amounts of actual work time for different people. Ideally we want a time limit that gives people who approach the situation of Builder A a fighting chance to produce something (assuming we can reach some consensus on what that would be).

 

I don't think most people are going to need an entire month to polish the module unless that rough draft has literally had no testing go into it or something.  Could possibly do something like one month to build and two weeks to polish.

 

I am leaning towards doing just such a time limit.

 

Do those gradations actually tell us anything useful?

 

Does it really matter if it's 3 versus 5 days late?

 

Does it really matter if you use 4 extra MB or 8 extra MB? ...

 

Those particular examples do not matter particularly, but more extreme ones might. It seems like there should be some distinction made between those who are more or less trying to follow the rules, even if not perfectly, and someone who is ignoring them altogether.

 

Why?

 

Again, encouragement and fun: if someone has an awesome idea but needs some extra CC and fulfills every other requirement, why not let them earn the best medal?  

 

Because, as I indicated above, if there is no consequence whatever for breaking a rule, one is in effect punishing the people who do not break it, as they must endure whatever limitations it imposes for no return. Also, we can hardly shorten the time limit, as you and other suggest doing, if at the same time we are for all practical purposes removing the time limit altogether (for anyone who chooses that as the one rule to break).

[Urk]

God I would love to have time for something like this. But I have a two year old son, a wife, and a business to run. Don't be too shocked if I submit something some time, but I just am not in a commitment to do anything besides take care of my family at this point. 

[MagicalMaster]

I am thinking about starting a new cycle in August. Could still do July instead if a lot of people eager to get started turn up.

 

I would be game for August.  Too busy for anything earlier.

 

Those particular examples do not matter particularly, but more extreme ones might. It seems like there should be some distinction made between those who are more or less trying to follow the rules, even if not perfectly, and someone who is ignoring them altogether.

 

How is there NOT a distinction being made?  Specific limits were set up there -- a week late max, for example, and if that bothers you then could reduce it to three days and not accept it.

 

Given that these modules CAN be designed without CC, I don't really see any difference between someone who uses 15.5 MB (with a 15 MB limit) compared to someone who uses 20 MB.  Now, sure, someone who uses 200+ MB is another story but do you really expect someone to do that?  If such a case actually happens I suggest we adjust the rules then because they clearly are ignoring the "rules."

 

Likewise, do we really think someone is going to intentionally try to turn in a module with 100 bugs or something?

 

So that leaves...themes.  Except it's pretty clear if you're ignoring themes since you won't be using 2+ as given in my example and thus you don't get credit.

 

Can you come up with a reasonable scenario where person A imperfectly tries to follow the rules and person B blatantly ignores them but would be rated the same under my proposed medal system?

 

Because, as I indicated above, if there is no consequence whatever for breaking a rule, one is in effect punishing the people who do not break it, as they must endure whatever limitations it imposes for no return. Also, we can hardly shorten the time limit, as you and other suggest doing, if at the same time we are for all practical purposes removing the time limit altogether (for anyone who chooses that as the one rule to break).

 

1. There is a consequence for breaking the rules, just not the first.  You get one "warning."

 

2, I didn't remove the time limit, in fact I established a HARD time limit of 1 week max late or not accepted at all (and that could be changed to 3 days or something).  So if someone has done EVERYTHING else perfectly and decides they need a few more days, they can do so and still get the best medal -- but if they break any other rule they won't.  So the time limit absolutely would exist.

 

In general, this train of thought was spawned by your statement:

 

"If someone insisted, for example, that they absolutely required 15 MB worth of CC to realize their concept, I did not want to have to say, 'No, that's against the rules, you can't be part of the challenge.' This is just being done for fun, so it did not seem reasonable to be that rigid."

 

Right now you ARE in fact proposing to be quite rigid.  You want to tell that person "Sorry, if you require 15 MB you're a second class citizen even if everything else is perfect."  If someone wants to use 15 MB but uses 3 themes, has no bugs, and turns it in on time then do we really want to indicate the module or author is second class?  Why CAN'T they still earn the best medal?

 

Like you said, this is FOR FUN, I don't think anyone will be complaining "Bobby met the CC limits, turned it in on time, and had no bugs but he only used one theme and got a gold medal like me!  It's so unfair!"

 

The goal is to encourage people to take part in the challenge and direct their general efforts towards the rules, right?  A 90% is still an A.

[Sumthing]

The ABC is still a thing? I would be interested in participating if it is.

[rogueknight333]

Not sure I have time atm to respond in detail to everything, but in regard to this:

 

 

Like you said, this is FOR FUN, I don't think anyone will be complaining "Bobby met the CC limits, turned it in on time, and had no bugs but he only used one theme and got a gold medal like me!  It's so unfair!"

 

 

I could imagine someone being very resentful over, e.g., a scenario where he by great exertions turned in a module on time only to get an even worse award,  because his module was buggy as a result, than some latecomer. In general, though obviously I cannot speak for everyone, I would expect people to care far more about their placement within a strictly limited number of awards than a 25 point difference where 100s of points are involved. To adopt your own analogy with school grades, only someone extremely concerned with his grades would worry overmuch about the difference between a 90 or 95, but the difference between an A and a B would be quite significant.

 

I think most if not all of my objections to the general concept you propose would be dealt with by making the number of award tiers exactly equivalent to the number of possible violations, and perhaps also by including some method of dealing with spectacularly egregious rule violations should they occur, if that seems a reasonable compromise?

 

The ABC is still a thing? I would be interested in participating if it is.

 

Good to hear. As you will have seen by reading this, more information about the next cycle will be forthcoming over the next month or two.

[MagicalMaster]

I could imagine someone being very resentful over, e.g., a scenario where he by great exertions turned in a module on time only to get an even worse award,  because his module was buggy as a result, than some latecomer.

 

This wouldn't be possible.

 

Both A and B did 3+ themes and used the appropriate amount of CC.

 

A turned in a buggy module on time.

 

B turned in a non-buggy module late.

 

Both break one rule and both get a gold medal.

 

In a sense, in this case it's saying "You're no worse off turning in a non-buggy product a few days late than turning in a buggy one on time."  Which I think is a message we WANT to send, no?  We don't want people turning it in on-time but buggy because then people will expect less of ABC modules.  Ideally on time AND bug free, of course.

 

To adopt your own analogy with school grades, only someone extremely concerned with his grades would worry overmuch about the difference between a 90 or 95, but the difference between an A and a B would be quite significant.

 

I think most if not all of my objections to the general concept you propose would be dealt with by making the number of award tiers exactly equivalent to the number of possible violations, and perhaps also by including some method of dealing with spectacularly egregious rule violations should they occur, if that seems a reasonable compromise?

 

Except there's a reason we don't assign raw percentages but rather give flat grades (sometimes with pluses and minuses).  We don't think that someone with a 95% should be rated higher than someone with a 93%.  We lump them together to remove minor fluctuations.  And a person who gets a 94 while someone else gets a 95 is going to care whereas it's not a big deal if they both get As -- especially in the environment we WANT in the ABC, which is inclusiveness and encouragement.

 

Method of dealing with egregious rule violations is fine, though it would theoretically only possibly matter for bugs and CC amount.

 

Award tiers being exactly equal to the number of possible violations is not a compromise whatsoever, it's going back to the original system.  The whole idea is based on a quote of yours earlier:

 

"If someone insisted, for example, that they absolutely required 15 MB worth of CC to realize their concept, I did not want to have to say, "No, that's against the rules, you can't be part of the challenge.""

 

If we make award tiers equal to violations, then we ARE telling that person they cannot be an equal part of the challenge because even if they produce an amazing bug free module on time with every possible theme...they're still relegated to second class in the BEST case scenario.  We're setting them up to fail from the start.  Why are you wanting to discourage that person from entering?

 

And if someone is petty enough to be angry that the person above got an EQUAL medal (the best one still) for producing a high quality and interesting ABC module, then I don't think that's an opinion we should be catering to.  We want to encourage people to participate and get a bunch of good submissions.

[rogueknight333]

This wouldn't be possible...

 

It might if some other rule violation were also in play. In any case, giving equal rewards for different degrees of accomplishment is open to essentially the same criticism. I was only using an extreme example to illustrate the point, but that perhaps obfuscated it instead.

 

Under your proposed system we would actually be rewarding people for violating a rule. If, for example, the CC & theme limitations were not an issue (and I expect they would only be so in a limited number of special cases), there would be no reason not to submit late. Submitting late would give more time to polish one's module, with no penalty. One might just as well set the time limit at 1 month+1 week (assuming 1 month was the base limit) to begin with. Why, under your system, would anyone ever submit on time, outside of the few special cases where the other rules were at stake? And in that case are we not also specially discriminating against those who do have some special reason for wanting a couple MB extra, or whatever, in precisely the manner you decry? They would have to submit a week earlier, which given the nature of the challenge, is a very significant difference (far more so, it would seem, than losing a few points). Alternatively someone who has no problem submitting on time would have no reason not to completely ignore the theme or the CC limits. 

 

It would seem a lot simpler to just not have rules than to first declare them and then encourage their violation.

 

As an aside, if there is no special reward for being early, I am not sure we even need a penalty for buggyness. Presumably no one is going to intentionally include bugs. The purpose of penalizing buggyness was to discourage people from rushing their work and submitting early at the expense of quality, which should not be an issue if there is no particular reason to submit early in the first place.

 

 

And if someone is petty enough to be angry that the person above got an EQUAL medal (the best one still) for producing a high quality and interesting ABC module, then I don't think that's an opinion we should be catering to.  We want to encourage people to participate and get a bunch of good submissions.

 

 

Ideally people would participate because they enjoy trying to make modules under the ABC's limitations or find this a convenient opportunity to make something fun or interesting. Any awards, points, etc. would just be gravy, ideally not something to get too worried about. If someone is going to get worked up about them, however, they would have every right to regard it as an injustice (albeit a trivial one) if they make sacrifices to abide by all the rules, only to be treated as equal to someone who did not. I might also note that, so far, you yourself are the only interested party to overreact to the points/awards in the manner you suggest is petty, so if I take your advice on that particular point, it is your opinions I would have to avoid catering to. Needless to say, I would prefer not to commence ignoring you, as I generally find your input interesting and helpful even when I disagree.

[CaveGnome]

Hello all,

 

I would like to propose an additional theme for a future AB Challenge:

 

 

 

Name: The great voyage.

Description: You (your party) will make a long and arduous journey to a far exotic destination.
The module will capture the travel adventures and finish when the distant goal is reached, or at
a minimum, will focus on a significant part of the endeavour. Travel can be by any means you like
(walking, horse, balloon, boat, eagle, treant, whale, dragon of course, magical transport, etc.).

 

 

 

 

Have a nice day (or night)... and don't take too seriously the points / rewards debate. The

original ABC had just 2 prizes: completion (ABC seed used and module delivered on time) and

honorable mention (delivered)

 

 

CG

[Grymlorde]

Have a nice day (or night)... and don't take too seriously the points / rewards debate. The

original ABC had just 2 prizes: completion (ABC seed used and module delivered on time) and

honorable mention (delivered)

 

I like the original scoring better. 

[MagicalMaster]

Thirded. Will respond more later.

[MagicalMaster]

I might also note that, so far, you yourself are the only interested party to overreact to the points/awards in the manner you suggest is petty, so if I take your advice on that particular point, it is your opinions I would have to avoid catering to. Needless to say, I would prefer not to commence ignoring you, as I generally find your input interesting and helpful even when I disagree.

 

Thankfully that isn't a concern since I am literally acting the complete opposite of the behavior I mentioned.  Consider the following as a concrete example:

 

Player A and player B both make ABC mods.  Player A's module is objectively better in every way.  But they both use a bunch of themes, turn it in on time, abide by CC restrictions, and have no bugs.  Under every scoring system listed so far, player A and B will get the same score/medal, which is the highest possible.

 

If player A gets upset that they both get equal ranking despite his being better, that's being petty.  Both modules were considered good enough to get the best award possible.  Presumably the same situation would occur if player B had 1-2 bugs.  Etc.

 

So the pettiness I'm talking about is someone getting upset that a "lesser" module (that is still a good module) received the same score as their module.  Which, again, is the complete opposite of what I've been saying/proposing this entire time.

 

It would seem a lot simpler to just not have rules than to first declare them and then encourage their violation.

 

I'd have no objection to that.

 

Why, under your system, would anyone ever submit on time, outside of the few special cases where the other rules were at stake? And in that case are we not also specially discriminating against those who do have some special reason for wanting a couple MB extra, or whatever, in precisely the manner you decry? They would have to submit a week earlier, which given the nature of the challenge, is a very significant difference (far more so, it would seem, than losing a few points).

 

Pride.  It's publicly known they couldn't finish the module on time with the quality needed.  People don't like that feeling.

 

And no, we're not specially discriminating against those people.  We're giving *everyone* a mulligan.  Can submit it late, use extra CC, not use themes, OR have some bugs.  Just one of those options.  One freebie.  Go past one and you'd start getting worse medals.

 

I also find it interesting that you're coming at it from the perspective of people planning to break the rules from the start and intentionally planning on turning it late versus having it as a last resort.

 

As an aside, if there is no special reward for being early, I am not sure we even need a penalty for buggyness. Presumably no one is going to intentionally include bugs. The purpose of penalizing buggyness was to discourage people from rushing their work and submitting early at the expense of quality, which should not be an issue if there is no particular reason to submit early in the first place.

 

People won't intentionally include bugs but they very well might not reserve anywhere close to enough time for testing.  Gives them a reason to NOT build up to the last second and hope there aren't bugs.

[werelynx]

You are overthinking the scoring. It shouldn't be the contest, but challenge! Like CCC.

Have fun!

[MagicalMaster]

Have fun!

 

Absolutely NOT.

[rogueknight333]

 

I would like to propose an additional theme for a future ABC Challenge:  ...The great voyage...

 

Ok, I can add this to the list for the next cycle. One possible variant on this might be to plan a series of modules over a number of cycles dealing with different stages of the voyage.

 

I like the original scoring better.  

 

It would certainly have the advantage of maximal simplicity, and as is becoming apparent, a more complex system is more likely to be controversial, insofar as it has more details to quibble over, and more likely to create perverse incentives as people seek ways to game the system (always a potential problem when dealing with gamers). The disadvantage would be that it is quite rigid. You either abide by the rules (one award) or you do not (the other) with no gradations or flexibility. That was what I was trying to avoid, but it may not be worth it.

 

 

Player A and player B both make ABC mods.  Player A's module is objectively better in every way...

 

How is this relevant at all? Once more, you appear to be assuming (or assuming others will assume) some sort of connection between the points/awards given and the module itself. This makes no sense. The points are awarded to the author, not the module, and evaluate the author's success in submitting a module (or rather modules since it was planned for them to accumulate over multiple cycles for prolific contributors) in accord with the contest rules. They do not evaluate the quality of the module itself, a completely separate issue. If the penalty for buggyness were removed (and though there may be other justifications it was in fact only included for the special reason stated above) there would be no connection whatsoever between the two. If anything one might have some reasons to expect a module submitted late, with extra CC, or whatever, would actually be better than one that was not. If indeed it turns out that people are being so illogical as to make the assumption you expect, surely the obvious solution is simply to clarify the actual significance of the points?

 

Again, I am certainly not committed to the proposition that the points system is particularly good, but all your problems with it seemed to be based on this curious assumption, which does not inspire confidence in your opinions concerning it.

 

To return to a more relevant example, X and Y each make an ABC module. It is irrelevant to the example which module is better. X submits on time, and in order to do so, makes some sort of sacrifice. Maybe his module is not as good as it could have been with a little more time, maybe he missed out on some sleep staying up late working on it, maybe something else. It does not matter for our purposes what the sacrifice was, just that he made one to abide by the rules. Y submits late instead, avoiding an equivalent sacrifice. We will assume no other rules are relevant in this case: both modules are in accord with the theme and abide by CC limitations. Both get the same award. How is this fair? How is this not a possible cause of resentment for anyone who chooses to take the awards very seriously?

 

 

I'd have no objection to that.

 

Which would amount to doing away with the ABC entirely since by definition it involves making a module in accord with certain rules. What am I missing here?

 

 

Pride.  It's publicly known they couldn't finish the module on time with the quality needed...

 

Or possibly it would mean that they simply chose to take advantage of the extra time that was in fact available, because it made sense to do so. In any case your proposed system would reduce the incentives to submit on time significantly, even if some incentives might still exist.

 

And no, we're not specially discriminating against those people.  We're giving *everyone* a mulligan.  Can submit it late, use extra CC, not use themes, OR have some bugs.  Just one of those options.  One freebie.  Go past one and you'd start getting worse medals.

 

The problem is that the theme/CC limitations are likely to be a problem only in a few special cases, while the time limitations and the need to avoid bugs are likely to be a problem for everyone, including those special cases. These also need to worry about time and thus labor under a double disadvantage. Not automatically a bad thing if the object is to discourage those violations in particular but it seems to work against the stated purpose of your alternative system of being yet more flexible.

 

I also find it interesting that you're coming at it from the perspective of people planning to break the rules from the start and intentionally planning on turning it late versus having it as a last resort.

 

I come at it from that perspective because your proposed system creates incentives to do precisely that. Also because of your own experience with the original system, in which you chose to treat the deadline for an early submission as the real due date, becoming upset when you proved unable to complete your module by that time. Why, with that example in mind, would I not anticipate that at least some people would treat the effective deadline not as the stated due date but as the latest date they can submit without penalty? This is not a hypothetical problem, something of the kind actually happened.

 

You are overthinking the scoring. It shouldn't be the contest, but challenge! Like CCC.

Have fun!

 

I agree with the general sentiment. Perhaps part of our problem is that it is much harder to make a working module in a short time period than to make a single piece of CC (apparently, anyway, judging from the comparative results of ABC & CCC cycles) with the result that the disciplines imposed by the formal rules, such as they are, seem more significant here.

[MagicalMaster]

How is this relevant at all?

 

Your original statement: "If someone is going to get worked up about them, however, they would have every right to regard it as an injustice (albeit a trivial one) if they make sacrifices to abide by all the rules, only to be treated as equal to someone who did not."

1. Person A makes sacrifices to abide by all the rules
2. Person B does not
3. Persons A and B get treated equally
4. Person A is unhappy

You view this as reasonable.  Let's follow that general train of thought:

1. Person A makes sacrifices to make an amazing module
2. Person B makes a mediocre module
3. Persons A and B get treated equally
4. Person A is unhappy

Wouldn't that also be an equally reasonable reaction, according to your logic?  That person A sees that their module is much better but got treated equally to player B and is thus upset, thinking they should get a better award?

 

Once more, you appear to be assuming (or assuming others will assume) some sort of connection between the points/awards given and the module itself....If the penalty for buggyness were removed (and though there may be other justifications it was in fact only included for the special reason stated above) there would be no connection whatsoever between the two.

 

As you yourself point out, one of the current criteria is bugginess.

 

Beyond that, which module would you assume is likely to be better quality?

 

1. Using three or more themes, within CC limits, and on time.

2. Using less or no themes, breaking CC limits, late.

 

Odds are #1, there's a correlation between the author's ability to follow rules and be disciplined and their quality of work.  Sure, it's entirely possible that a module with #2's criteria will be better -- but it's much less likely.

 

To return to a more relevant example, X and Y each make an ABC module. It is irrelevant to the example which module is better. X submits on time, and in order to do so, makes some sort of sacrifice. Maybe his module is not as good as it could have been with a little more time, maybe he missed out on some sleep staying up late working on it, maybe something else. It does not matter for our purposes what the sacrifice was, just that he made one to abide by the rules. Y submits late instead, avoiding an equivalent sacrifice. We will assume no other rules are relevant in this case: both modules are in accord with the theme and abide by CC limitations. Both get the same award. How is this fair? How is this not a possible cause of resentment for anyone who chooses to take the awards very seriously?

 

It's fair for the same reason a person with 100% on every assignment/exam/lab/etc in a class gets the same grade as someone with an 89.5% average.  Both get As.

 

X *knows* there is a margin of error built into the rules -- he decided his pride in getting it in on time was better than taking the extra time.  That's perfectly fine and B is not getting a *better* award than A.  B simply did well enough to earn the *highest* reward, regardless of how A did.

 

We could also bring in person Z who makes zero sacrifices and simply turns in a module half the size of X and still gets the same award of X.  Shouldn't X be angry at Z as well, for taking the "easy" route of making a small module that was easy to finish in time with no sacrifice?  By your logic he would be, no?

 

Which would amount to doing away with the ABC entirely since by definition it involves making a module in accord with certain rules. What am I missing here?

 

That the rules serve mainly as an inspiration and guide the work.

 

Which assignment would you have rather had in high school history?

 

1. Write a 10 page paper on an important historical event

2. Write a 10 page paper on religious conflict in Medieval England

 

#1 leaves a lot of people thinking "Uh...where do I even start?" whereas #2 leaves people thinking "Okay, I know what I need to write about."

 

In other words, we have rules, but they're not really important.  All that's really important is "Did this player make a good effort toward creating something that fits in with the idea of the ABC?"  Which mainly boils down to

 

1. Short time period

 

That's really it.  Everything else is mainly inspiration for people who don't know what to build -- heck, the original ABC had a "wild card" theme which was "Do anything else you want" which is what Siege of the Heavens came under.

 

Or possibly it would mean that they simply chose to take advantage of the extra time that was in fact available, because it made sense to do so. In any case your proposed system would reduce the incentives to submit on time significantly, even if some incentives might still exist.

 

I think it's a fairly strong incentive considering people are only entering the ABC in the FIRST place to show they can make a module in a short time period.  Failing to get it in on time is a big deal for people trying to demonstrate they're capable of doing precisely that.  Serious question -- have you actually seen anything to indicate anyone specifically would TRY to take advantage of the system?

 

1. CaveGnome got his in on time

2. I went catatonic for a week upon realizing I couldn't have my module in *early* at the quality I wanted

3. No one else even submitted at all, let alone submitted late

 

The problem is that the theme/CC limitations are likely to be a problem only in a few special cases, while the time limitations and the need to avoid bugs are likely to be a problem for everyone, including those special cases. These also need to worry about time and thus labor under a double disadvantage. Not automatically a bad thing if the object is to discourage those violations in particular but it seems to work against the stated purpose of your alternative system of being yet more flexible.

 

I'll admit I'm not overly familiar with CC except for things like hak modifications for altering game mechanics.  But presumably CC in this case is mainly going to be new creature models or new tilesets, no?

 

So in effect we're saying "If you REALLY want to invest the time into gazillions of custom models and tilesets then you have no excuse for being late -- you KNOW what you're getting into here."

 

Kind of a "violate the 10 MB limit at your own peril, it's largely there to protect you from yourself."

 

I come at it from that perspective because your proposed system creates incentives to do precisely that. Also because of your own experience with the original system, in which you chose to treat the deadline for an early submission as the real due date, becoming upset when you proved unable to complete your module by that time. Why, with that example in mind, would I not anticipate that at least some people would treat the effective deadline not as the stated due date but as the latest date they can submit without penalty? This is not a hypothetical problem, something of the kind actually happened.

 

Because I literally did the *reverse* of what you're worried about.  I was completely obsessed about getting it in "on time" which to me meant "three days 'early.'"  The shame of not meeting my self-imposed deadline threw me into a catatonic state.

 

I didn't say "Oh well, missed the initial deadline, I still have three days to get it in before I get a penalty," I said "Oh woe is me, all is lost, my shame is eternal, I am a failure for not getting it in on time (aka early)."

 

In conclusion, I'd be fine with a rule system that was "Completion" for

 

1. on time (four weeks to build, two weeks to refine)

2. close to CC limits

3. few bugs

 

Note the lack of the theme as well -- I'd be perfectly fine letting someone who has an idea in mind already participate in the cycle.  And then "honorable mention" for anything else.  We can play "violations" by ear in terms of CC limits and bugs, I think we'll all be able to agree on an egregious violation.

 

All in all, the ABC is about producing a module with reasonable quality in a short building cycle for people to enjoy.  Anything else is just icing on the cake.

[rogueknight333]

...Let's follow that general train of thought:

1. Person A makes sacrifices to make an amazing module
2. Person B makes a mediocre module
3. Persons A and B get treated equally
4. Person A is unhappy

Wouldn't that also be an equally reasonable reaction, according to your logic?  That person A sees that their module is much better but got treated equally to player B and is thus upset, thinking they should get a better award?

 

If the matter in which they were being treated equally was an award specifically based on the quality of the module such a reaction would be quite understandable (at least if we leave aside the problem that judging module quality is inevitably going to be based at least to some extent on subjective preferences). If the award were for something else entirely, it would not be.

 

It is certainly possible that there might turn out to be some correlation between module quality and the author's ability to do things like get it in on time. It would not be a reliable correlation, and it still would be a distinct thing from what the points/awards/whatever are based on.

 

X *knows* there is a margin of error built into the rules...We could also bring in person Z who makes zero sacrifices and simply turns in a module half the size of X and still gets the same award of X.  Shouldn't X be angry at Z as well, for taking the "easy" route of making a small module that was easy to finish in time with no sacrifice?  By your logic he would be, no?

 

Z has made a sacrifice of a sort precisely by making a smaller, less ambitious module than he might otherwise have attempted, but it is true that some inequities are inherent in the nature of the process and beyond our power to fix (as I mentioned above, for example, some people, due to their life circumstances, will have more time to work on a module than others, even while nominally operating under the same time limit), and those must simply be accepted as "the breaks" by those choosing to participate. I fail to see why that is a reason for introducing further inequities that can easily be avoided.

 

Serious question -- have you actually seen anything to indicate anyone specifically would TRY to take advantage of the system?

 

I do not think one would have to delve far into the history of online activities to find that there is ample reason, as a general principle, to fear that a system that can be exploited will be, but do I actually need something aside from your own example? At a very specific level you may have done the reverse of what I fear from the award system you proposed (becoming obsessed with being early rather than unconcerned with being late) but more generally you were treating the earliest date with no penalty as the actual due date, and attaching an unanticipated importance to the points being awarded. If it were not for you taking every aspect of every proposed system with such seriousness (and reacting in a seemingly exaggerated way to the incentives of the system actually used), I would be a lot less concerned than I am about making sure any system used will be as equitable as possible and avoid unintended consequences and perverse incentives. You may note that this...

 

All in all, the ABC is about producing a module with reasonable quality in a short building cycle for people to enjoy.  Anything else is just icing on the cake.

 

...is a paraphrase of what everyone else has been saying in response to you:

 

Ideally people would participate because they enjoy trying to make modules under the ABC's limitations or find this a convenient opportunity to make something fun or interesting. Any awards, points, etc. would just be gravy, ideally not something to get too worried about.

 

... and don't take too seriously the points / rewards debate...

 

You are overthinking the scoring. It shouldn't be the contest, but challenge! Like CCC.

 

You are the main party who appears to have a problem seeing the ABC in the manner you agree it should be seen.

 

Since I cannot be certain that no one will take any awards system with unwonted seriousness, its comparative unimportance does not absolve me of the responsibility of implementing as fair and reasonable a system as I am able. I am not yet certain exactly what that would be, though I am mulling over a few ideas. Given the negative results of the experiment with the points (which gave you incentives to act in a manner completely opposite to that intended, and that so far as I know was not particularly helpful to anyone), I certainly cannot see continuing that, at least not without substantial modifications.