Quote from: namida on September 12, 2024, 11:08:56 PM

QuoteNote: Only one rule with only one entry per author will not automatically lead to much more frequent contests as even then sufficient time to (mainly) design, play and (to a lesser extend) vote needs to be accounted for.

My suggestion in this regard was basically to get rid of the mixed rounds. So, still running three rules at once (just like we currently do), but we just find a winner from each individual rule, instead of having any mixed rounds. As such, it shouldn't be much different to the status quo in terms of time needed.

I suspect the response to this poll is going to be very different depending on whether an approach like this, vs basically just "keep the same frequency but one entry and one rule per contest", is the proposal.

Then I will adress this in a separate poll.

So first if we should keep the multiple rule structure at all and then if we should treat them as in your suggestion.

The topic is for polls for adaptations to the level design contests.

For the discussions themselves please stick to the discussion topics.

So far we had the following two:

1.) https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=6807.0
2.) https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=6622.0

I won't change major things like the whole entry system before I know that at least a significant portion of people is behind certain ideas.

The first poll I want to make is about people feel if the basic entry structure should be changed.

Before touching the voting system let's first see how people fell about the rule/entry system, as it may effect the degree in which the voting should be updated.

How many entries/rules should level design contests have?

- (As before) Multiple rules with possible multiple entries per author.
- Only one rule with only one entry per author.

Note: Only one rule with only one entry per author will not automatically lead to much more frequent contests as even then sufficient time to (mainly) design, play and (to a lesser extend) vote needs to be accounted for.

I will be away this week from monday until thursday.

kaywhyn will take care of the final contest round during that time.

I will probably start polls at the end of next week when I am back from my trip. The first one will be about the 1 entry with 1 rule or multiple entries with multiple rules question.

Also, I will probably post those in a dedicated topic and not directly in the discussion topics.

Quote
One other possibility that comes to mind is, during the non-mixed phase, hold all three rules' votes simultaneously. This wouldn't cut down on the number of votes, but would get them done much quicker (and can also potentially be combined with other ideas).

Quote
I think this would help streamline things a bit. The combination of the sheer number of voting rounds is a major factor in why the voting takes so long, but it's further exacerbated by the fact that we only run one round at a time even when the rounds don't have dependencies on each other.

I am open for this, but how can we implement that?

Maybe hosting 1 vote in the voting topic and use the discussion and update topics for the 2 extra polls? Or is there a way to host multiple polls at the same time in one topic?

QuoteThis is kind of my point, though: if your favourite level got voted out, why should you now be voting for a level you didn't think should win? Votes now mean less in this round, surely?

I still vote for a level that I think should win compared to another even if they were not among my favorites.

In the end with your conclusion it at least still would come down to the question if the vote or the placement matters less.

All in all, the question of "One mixed round to determine the top 3" would be best to put up on a poll later. I am willing to try out skipping it if there is enough support for the simple system.

Quote"Make a Tame level" and similar rules are rare. It's much more the case that sometimes, we pretty much know that one rule can't win and the real contest is between the other two

This definitely seems problematic IMO. Is there any way to address this so that contests are more balanced and don't automatically favour one rule over another?

I think this could only be solved with: Create you own special contest with suited rules, so that specifically non puzzle focused levels are encouraged.

You just can't boost the popularity of certain level types if you do not specifically enforce that type via a rule for all.

QuoteStrongly against this. If the contest provides 3 rules and 1 rule is less popular in terms of entrants, that doesn't automatically mean that those entries are lower quality than the entries in the more popular rules. If those levels have attracted votes, they should progress through the contest.

That is not at all what currently happens! On the contrary: The adapted survival rate strictly ensures that all rules are treated fairly!

Without it the less popular rules get an unfair advantage over the popular ones even!

QuoteSuggestion, then: the mixed round could consist of the top 6 levels overall by number of votes, as opposed to just taking the top 2 (or any other number based on survival rate) from each rule. This eliminates the need for survival rate, and empowers the users' votes (which, IMO, should definitely be a goal in all this).

This has the problem if in one rule only 6 people vote and in another 10, the round in which some people missed the voting has a disadvantage.

QuoteThe previous round may have given the top 3 placements. If there are no ties, why another arbitrary round?

I would not call that round arbitrary. The vote would be different as you can't vote for the elimiated levels anymore and you get a clearer and more direct comparison between the top contenders for the first place.
My vote definitely changes if my favorite level got voted out.

QuoteIs it out of the question to do away with tiebreakers and/or run-offs and just award joint 3rd place to multiple contestants? Less voting, more people get recognition for their work and for attracting votes in the first instance.

I really don't like having a lot of people on the same placement - we had 4 winners at one point and it felt really underwhelming und lackluster and I would even argue it lowers recognition on top of cluttering the ranking. Reference: https://www.lemmingsforums.net/index.php?topic=3057.0
At some point simply no-one wins anymore as winning loses its meaning as it is less of a challenge.
It just arises in question in a direct vote-off which entry would fair better.
To be honest, I would have my entry rather have a fair face off and lose a place and I doubt that this would change much in terms of recognition.
I highly doubt it that people are more likely to submit entries when they know ties can happen more regularly!

One thing that came to my mind about the "Simple System":

What should happen when we got a clear first and 2nd place, but a tie (or major tie) for the third?

It feels weird to have a vote after the winner is set in stone, but to have like 3+ people being 3rd is not optimal as well in my opinion.
This can also be problematic for major ties for the 2nd place.
I think to have at least somewhat clear finals we need that one little step to the top 3. A single mixed round has too many edge cases here.

In both suggestions implementing run-offs instead of tie-breakers should have the most value.

Discussion has just started please do not count the following as a final statement and just as a first suggestion!

My first proposal would be :

1.) One vote for each rule, no tiebreakers. Still adapt the survival rate for group size.

2.) One mixed round to determine the top 3. Ties will be resolved with a run-off round where the winner here simply lands on the place in question, but does not survive further.

3.) One final round to determine the (remaining) top 3 placements.


So for 3 rules the minimum would be 5 rounds of voting with 1 possible run-off round.

The other simple system would reduce the number from 5 to 4 for comparison, but leaves the top 3 edge cases stated earlier.

Personally I like the "2. A Compromise System" proposal.

Comments:

- One hard objection is one point: "Drop the "survival rate" maths and have the top two of each rule go through:" - This can get highly unfair in some cases! Let's say one rule is pretty popular and another is not. One gets 10 levels and one 4. This would mean that in one case half of the levels survive and in the other only a fifth.
The "maths" take me like one minute and is no real extra work and just lessens possible rule bias. Different survival rates also don't cause extra voting rounds.

- "The mixed group is also one voting round." Main reason I am not siding with "A Simple System". I really don't like voting on large groups that straight up determine final positions. It often results in major ties and less precise outcomes.
Also, there is a chance that the mixed group is split into 2 when larger ties happen in the voting of the rules.

But back to "2. A Compromise System":

Again, I would still object the "Drop the "survival rate" maths and have the top two of each rule go through:" part.

- "The mixed group has two rounds: one to get the levels down to a top three, and one to rank those three." I can side with the suggestion that the placement of the top 3 is ideally just one round. The first part we already try to do.

- "Tiebreakers are replaced with run-offs. If there is a tied third place, hold a run-off between the levels that tied for third, and the winner doesn't re-enter the voting; it just gets third place and the final is between just first and second." This is the major suggestion for me here, that can effectively reduce the voting time! If there is support for this I can adapt it.

As you said there can still be tiebreakers needed in worst case scenarios.
The most common run-off scenario I would see in "get the levels down to a top three" when multiple levels tie for the 3rd place. In extreme cases where 3+ levels tie for 3rd then in the run-off additional run-offs could even be nessesary.

Anyway I will see what comments pop up further down the line and then make a poll.

One level goes into the final round, but we need another tiebreaker for the 2nd spot.

I noticed that this was simply locked, but I will make a final statement anyway.

First, I don't see a sign that any statements were ignored here, just discussed rather than automatically changes being implemented based on these.

Also, both methods of either awarding the designer or the level are valid contest methods. Neither of those are problematic in themself, but just have a different focus. Both work and you can make contests with both.

So why did we adapt the level focus?

- The reason I see why people choose to participate in a level design contest is not simply to get a medal/placing in the top 3. It is to create levels with interesting rulesets and play other levels with these rulesets. Winning is secondary. The joy and also excuse to make and play new levels takes the forefront.

- A hint that this holds indeed true is that in the past only 1 or 2 levels could be submittet and people actively wanted to be able to submit for all 3 rules just to A) create more levels and B) play more levels. Again, this shows the interest lies more in the levels not the designers.

As a result, the levels should be awarded in the case for this contest which I also see reflected in the poll.

QuoteThose who often win are unlikely to see a problem with the current system

This I highly find unfair to just accuse me of not wanting to change things because I win contests.

A) Over the time (even before you joined the forum) first namida and then myself consistently adapted the contest design to address widespread public desires. Adopting the 3 rule system, reworked the voting to reduce tiebreaker rounds, adding the possibility to update your entries, maling a compilation pack were all such adaptations as an example.

B) I really like making contest levels - so of course I create levels for all 3 rules. Yes, this increases the chance that one of my levels wins, but the core of the reason why I am doing this is not the victory, but because I like to create levels after rulesets - sometimes I even make entries with suboptimal chances to get far because I like a certain gimmik. And with consistently high effort being placed in creating these levels results come around.
I can exclude myself from voting even, but I highly doubt that this would bring any difference in the number of contest entries!

C)

Quote"The most prolific and popular designers tend to win the contests; the data proves that."

I think you are interpreting the data wrong and that is why you see the contest design as problematic. "popular" I highly doubt that this has anything to do with it. People are not just voting like "ah that is Icho's level that one gets my vote" - I still have voting flops!. Again, Armani and myself entered all contests with 3 entries and gathered lots of experience in adapting to rules and make quality levels in terms off appearance, difficulty and creative solutions. Of course this will most likely show results as more time passes and it is quite hard to beat.

I really really try to make it to up to as many people as I can, but over the years I ever so often hit my limitations. I learned to accept that I can't satisfy everyone and that not everyone will approve the decisions that I made. But in the end decisions need to be made.

As a result from this (apart from ensuring a clear level top 3 every time):

I want to make a testrun with the anonymous playing/voting phase. If it goes poorly we can always scrap it again for the next contest or even change it back on the fly.

Quote from: WillLem on September 01, 2024, 04:51:09 PM
Here's a more extreme example to illustrate what I'm proposing:

Designer A's Level A gets 100 votes
Designer A's Level B gets 98 votes
Designer B's Level A gets 99 votes
Designer C's Level A gets 97 votes
Designer D's Level A gets 1 vote
Designer E's Level A gets 1 vote
...
Designer Z's Level A gets 1 vote

Should Designer C be awarded 3rd place, or Designer A?

I would still say Designer A.

Again in my book the contest is purely about levels, not designers and I would not call it a problem just a different focus.

Quoteunbalanced in favour of only the most prolific and popular designers

This I would 100% call not true!

The best/most popular levels win. The author is second fiddle here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But that gave me another idea:

How about we only post the levels without giving the authors name!

The authors will only be named after the final vote! This would remove next to all influence of the authors.

In my point of view, I don't care if this would result in an extra voting round - even if the last 2 levels are from the same designer, I would still be curious what level would win here.


But fundamentally I still see both the regular and LOTY contests still as a "Level Design Contest" first. With the goal of finding the the best level/s regardless of its designer.

If a designer makes multiple extremely good levels both of those sould be rewarded - as those were the best levels. The amount of people getting in the top 3 I see as a side note.

The top 3 has been determined! Time for the semi-finals!

In the case of the new objects:

1.) People need to get experience with them so I can indeed make good introduction levels showing their potential. Tricks and behaviors need to be discovered first!
2.) Very few tilesets actually got these objects right now. Waiting for more tilesets include fitting versions of them is very beneficial.
3.) After that, creating well designed and thought out levels takes time.

So all in all it will take quite a bit before a new version that includes the new objects comes out - but it is planned.

Regarding talismans: There could be a training level that introduces the concept and serves as general training at the same time.