16 levels have made it to this second phase. Here we will try and reduce this number to 4 or slightly above that due to possible ties. This way we will have a small enough group for the final phase.
The levels have been divided into 4 groups of 4 levels semi-randomly.
Each group will be voted on one at a time, with the goal being that only 1 level from each group advancing to Phase 3. This number can increase in the case of ties. I plan no tiebreakers for this!
For the final phase I will enforce the top 3 via tiebreakers though.
If you want to see the full list of nominated levels in non-randomized order, check the nominations list topic (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=4090.0)
If you want to play these levels without having to dig up all the various level packs, check the playing phase topic (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=4130.0) which has an NXP available for download that contains all the nominated levels.
Please remember that discussing the nominated levels is not allowed in the LOTY2018 topics now that voting has begun. This does not apply to levels that have already been eliminated at the time. Discussing them elsewhere in the site is okay, as long as it's not in the context of LOTY2018.
I have to wonder if going as low as "only one level gets through" is pushing it a bit too much in a non-final round, especially when it's four candidates with each user only getting one vote. Perhaps there should at least be a "if second place is only behind by one vote" or something rule?
When each tie results in 1 extra level going through as tiebreakers are not being run, a doubling of the survival rate to 2 would equal at least in 8 survivors.
In the last phase we had a 60% increase in survivors due to ties. Let's estimate low and say only 2 extra levels would go though (25% increase). This would lead to 10 survivors here.
A single group of 10 to vote on I would call too large and I was only doing it once in the past extreme case of ~ 90 nominations in last years LOTY 1st phase. (also wasn't too keen on it, but even the group count was very high)
So we would have an extra phase of ~ 10 levels to vote down to the final group of ~ 4-6. The point of no tiebreakers was to make the voting process faster. So in this case we implemented no tiebreakers, only to end up with more voting rounds because of it. This is counterproductive.
The likelyhood of ties may need some more data points, but this should influence the survival rate.
The low survival rate also is in line with statements from the poll thread (https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=4159.0):
From other users:
Quote
...
Secondly, reduce the survival rate.
...
From my new guideline:
Quote
This way I will cover the following critiques:....
...
- Reducing of the survival rate
...
In user feedback:
Quote
...
Fewer rounds with long voting times is good. Reducing survival rate is good.
...
So whenever I have to choose between a higher and a lower survival rate, I will tend to the lower one.
Quote"if second place is only behind by one vote"
I want to keep the voting free from extra clutter rules as well. Extra "Ifs" should be avoided if possible.