Amidon37 wrote:

I've been turned off to the "Design Contest" idea/threads for quite awhile now.  I think was a good idea, but its just not panning out that well for a number of reasons.  And since I am trying to break my habit of reading every forum post dropping these was easy.

I talked with Ratsy some about partnering on a board and he mentioned the current RPG contest.  So, I went back and read most of the Design Contest threads I had skipped.

I really like the idea of the Crammy's for a number of reasons.  In particular  I think the "themed" contests are too limiting.  Frequently the designer already has a board in mind that happens to fit.  Some good boards have come out of the theme's, but also many good boards have come out during the contests that people are doing just because they want to. 

So, I'd like to see the theme idea dropped entirely and instead have a yearly "best of" for a few categories.  I think the idea of using the board rating system is a good one.  I am not a fan at all of the current system.  I rated a few boards when I started, but rate very few of them now.  If we can repurpose it and make the rating system better I'd be all for it.

Another thing that bugs me some about the current contests is the monetary reward - I'd be happier with something, somewhere on the site saying "this board was rated the best use of innovative game play in 2013" or something like that.  Playing for money does not gibe with the reason I frequent this site.

I pretty much agree with everything a37 has said here.  In fact, I feel like I'm one of the designer's he's talking about.   The only suggestion I would change/ammend is, while the Crammy's don't need to have direct monetary value -- a paid membership would be a nice gesture.

Each category could win a year's premium membership, and the "Board of the Year" or similarly named top award could be worth a 3 or 5 year membership.

Cost to Tom - considerably less.  Memberships going forward cost him nothing if the designers would otherwise leave the site for lack of recognition.

And I love the idea of the awards being pinned to the boards.

E.g., Best Graphics 2014; Creative Use of Advanced Designer Features/Factories 2015, etc.

If tom needs those graphics (pins) created I can volunteer to do that.  Just need some specs so I know what i'm shooting for. 

Amidon37 wrote:

I've been turned off to the "Design Contest" idea/threads for quite awhile now.  I think was a good idea, but its just not panning out that well for a number of reasons.  And since I am trying to break my habit of reading every forum post dropping these was easy.

I talked with Ratsy some about partnering on a board and he mentioned the current RPG contest.  So, I went back and read most of the Design Contest threads I had skipped.

I really like the idea of the Crammy's for a number of reasons.  In particular  I think the "themed" contests are too limiting.  Frequently the designer already has a board in mind that happens to fit.  Some good boards have come out of the theme's, but also many good boards have come out during the contests that people are doing just because they want to. 

So, I'd like to see the theme idea dropped entirely and instead have a yearly "best of" for a few categories.  I think the idea of using the board rating system is a good one.  I am not a fan at all of the current system.  I rated a few boards when I started, but rate very few of them now.  If we can repurpose it and make the rating system better I'd be all for it.

Another thing that bugs me some about the current contests is the monetary reward - I'd be happier with something, somewhere on the site saying "this board was rated the best use of innovative game play in 2013" or something like that.  Playing for money does not gibe with the reason I frequent this site.

amidon is spot on!

this is what i have said in past forums.

get rid of theme contests and go with boards released "live" within a six month time period.

I'm gonna go ahead and be a contrarian here. I want a themed contest in addition to a non-themed one, and I like the idea of cash prizes.

in effort not to be too verbose; i too like the one themed, one not idea. especially if it helps direct growth in a certain area we're lacking in.

I don't really mind what system we use, whatever everyone thinks works best really.

The board voting system could easily be appropriated to score only those boards which were released in the last 6 months.

Also I don't mind picking topics etc.

tom wrote:

Also I don't mind picking topics etc.

Then you shall!

It sounds like there are substantial numbers that want a themed competition and substantial numbers that want an open competition.  So how about as Cram said we do both.

How about two contests running concurrently - each with a year to develop and a year to vote? 

Schedule would look something like this:

December 1, 2013 - Theme discussion Post (i.e. lobbying Tom)

December 31, 2013 - Tom chooses theme for 2014 contest.

December 31, 2014 - All maps for 2014 contest must have passed review.

January 1, 2014 - One post for each contest listing all contestants (i.e. those that match the theme & all other maps released during the year).

December 31, 2014 - Votes are tallied, prizes awarded.

I think it's important to have a long period for voting, because otherwise the most straightforward maps will have a big advantage.  More complicated maps take longer to develop a following.

Are we assuming the board voting system will be used to decide winners for both contests?  Or  do we want to run a vote in the forums for one or both?

I'm not sure how the board voting system works.  I noticed that the ratings on the overall  boards page don't jibe with the ones on the board specific page.

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Simple+World/Ratings

Thoughts?  Arguments?

I think two rounds a year is better.  That lessens the competition for each contest, which provides more motivation, and is timely enough. A year to develop and pass a board seems like a super long time. 

What is Open?  What might be the criteria? 

M57 wrote:

What is Open?  What might be the criteria? 

Open means any map that doesn't fit the theme.  I guess we'd require the map maker to post or PM me to get entered, so that everyone gives permission and knows their map is in the contest.

Criteria?  You mean for choosing the winner?  Either it could be decided simply based on the ratings given to the maps or we could hold an official vote in the forums.  Voters would use whatever criteria they like for scoring the maps.

Ozyman wrote:

Open means any map that doesn't fit the theme.  I guess we'd require the map maker to post or PM me to get entered, so that everyone gives permission and knows their map is in the contest.

Criteria?  You mean for choosing the winner?  Either it could be decided simply based on the ratings given to the maps or we could hold an official vote in the forums.  Voters would use whatever criteria they like for scoring the maps.

The use of User Ratings in an open format would probably encourage lobbying by the map creators, much like movie makers barrage the Academy members with materials to get them to vote.  Really, any format will skew results.  That's why I like the idea of multiple open catetorgies similar to Grammy's and People's Choice, which could incorporate a combination of formats.

People's Choice (Votes)

Most Popular: (Plays)

Best Looking: (Votes)

Most Interesting Mechanism (Votes)

Editor's Choice: (Ratings)

Special Category of the Year (Known up in advance by designers) (system to be decided)

I think all maps should be entered automatically.  I suppose a map-maker could opt out.  Personally, I could care less about the money. I realize I'm probably in the minority there, but I would love to not have to respond to my wife when she asks "What's this $30 charge from Wargear? ..Are you becoming a terrorist or something?"  A year's membership plus a medal next to my board would be much more satisfying.

Personally, I could care less about the money. I realize I'm probably in the minority there, but I would love to not have to respond to my wife when she asks "What's this $30 charge from Wargear? ..Are you becoming a terrorist or something?"  A year's membership plus a medal next to my board would be much more satisfying.

In the event that you win, I bet tom would be willing to apply your prize money to a membership. That's likely way easier than mailing a cheque. Or, worse, having to deal with PayPal.

Also, buying illegal materials from a site called "WarGear" might, in fact, make you the worse terrorist ever.

Yep - Any prize money I have won has been turned directly into a membership for someone.   I'd be fine with a membership prize (and some sort of site recognition would be great), but I always get the opinion Tom wants cash prizes because he thinks it might draw in some outside talent. 

>Also, buying illegal materials from a site called "WarGear" might, in fact, make you the worse terrorist ever.

lol.  Never thought of this before.  We are probably all on a watch-list now.  I can see the nightline report now: "They gather on a secretive War Gear website.  Code names are employed to hide their true identities, while they practice their strategies of destruction.  Their leader goes by the unassuming moniker: Tom"

M57 - I'm not really against that idea in principle, but it would make voting a lot more complicated.  And it would split the prize money up quite a bit.  And trying to find a consensus for how things will work is harder the more complicated the system is.  Also, the more complicated it is to vote, the more I think it will reduce voting turn-out.

>I think two rounds a year is better.  That lessens the competition for each contest, which provides more motivation

I don't think it really lessens the competition, because if we split up the competitions, we'd also have to split up the prizes.

>A year to develop and pass a board seems like a super long time. 

When we started the map making contest, the time frames were much shorter, but as they've gone on, the times have been extended.  Sure, I can churn out a standard simple map in a few months, but if I want to try something different it might take 6 months just to design and build and then another few months to try and balance and play test games on.  Plus sometimes it takes a month+ to get through review.  Previously I've been very lax - map makers only need to have submitted to review by the deadline, I'd rather have a longer deadline with a strict criteria (i.e. having to have passed review).

while in theory i like the idea of 6mo theme/6mo open - i see the point of full-up development in 5-6mo to be difficult for a large/complex board.

i'm fine with it only being 'submitted'; on the condition that if it doesn't pass, the money goes to the next in line.

However, I think better would be to say it has to be submitted 1 month prior to start of voting to at least give it a chance to get through on time (this gives 11mo for full-up development).

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

so that being said, coupled with tom's post (#7) with what he'd be willing to put up
(not sure how to take his post BTW, was that per contest or overall, per contest would be simple: his post *2, if overall then the following)

Overall (for each, themed and open)
$50  - 1st
$30 - 2nd
$10 - 3rd
$30 - Editor's Choice (per Cram's post #12 - i really like the idea of us picking that diamond in the rough that impresses our major players) 

Whatever the money ends up being, the money is to come with a graphic ribbon overlay on thumbnail and About section of board (eg: 2013 1st place Theme, 2013 Editor's Choice Open).

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

i also really like the idea for Honorable Mentions.
these would be along the lines of what's been mentioned here. UNPAID, but with a graphic ribbon overlay on thumbnail and About section of board:

Best Looking/Graphics: (Votes)

Most Interesting Mechanism: (Votes)

Best Use of Theme: (Votes)

Most Original Idea: (Votes)

>I think better would be to say it has to be submitted 1 month prior to start of voting to at least give it a chance to get through on time (this gives 11mo for full-up development).

Yeah - that makes sense.

--------

Tom's post was in the context of there being 2 contests a year, so I think those dollar values were for each contest if we have 2 a year.

------

As for the the graphic ribbon overlays, I think everyone agrees it's a great idea, but it depends on Tom, so no use hashing out the details unless he says he wants to implement it.

How about a cash prize for top board and memberships for winners of other categories?

Some more thoughts on all this -

1) Being able to turn the cash prize into membership fees is fine.  It's funny how I am not interested in competing for a $30 prize, but I am ok with competing for a 1 year membership.  Even though they have the same value, they feel different.  I guess that is why gift cards are such a big business.

2) +1 to Weathertop's post #36

3) I think a Google Spreadsheet could be used to voting.  I know there are concerns about voter integrity, but I think if you include a field with "User Name" you can verify things enough to keep it clean.

4) It would be cooler, though, to modify the board rating system some.  I like how Ebay does their ratings these days - you have a place for a public comments and a public overall rating, but then you privately rate specifics (and then the aggregate is reported.)  The same could be done here by keeping what is in place and adding in a private rating of aspects of the board like Graphics, Scenarios, Board Description, Functionality, etc.

Amidon37 wrote:

3) I think a Google Spreadsheet could be used to voting.  I know there are concerns about voter integrity, but I think if you include a field with "User Name" you can verify things enough to keep it clean.

FYI - that is basically what I do now.  I used to try and post the spreadsheet at the beginning of voting in the hopes that people would just enter their votes by hand, but (other than 1 time IIRC) everyone just posts their votes in the thread and then I transfer them later.