Future STGT Guidelines (STGT '08 Rule Changes?)

[Edge]

QUESTION

Code: Select all

Any kind of individual score sub-average compensation for players missing a week?

1. Is the concept of granting players who miss X weeks an individual score compensation a good idea?

That's an interesting idea...

If yes:
2. How many weeks should be the limit a player can miss and still get an average compensation?

If yes, I'd say 1 week out of 5. Three joined weeks could also work, but could maybe encourage cherry picking liked games. So I agree with you that 4 joined weeks should be a minimum to get a point compensation.

3. Should the average points compensation be given:
A. right after the scoring week is missed?
B. after all weeks have passed?
C. hybrid of A & B; as long as the player doesn't miss X* weeks, an average score compensation is added to the player's total score for that missed week computing all weeks played so far. The average individual points compensation is then re-configured for every week played after the missed one and the new average is reapplied to the player's total?

I am all for B of these options:
Because first of all it's way easier to implement than C. Which would be too complicated and also confusing if players prior week scores would drop and rise depending on each week's results. And A wouldn't be so accurate and fair, for the reasons you already mentioned.

4. How much percent of the average individual points should be used in this missed week points compensation?

If you look carefully on your posted single player rankings, you'll notice that the position of a certain member would have been dropped from 12th to 13th with the 60% compensation, instead of the 40% method? I think this clearly proofes why this value is absolutely unfair.

No, seriously I'd say some value below 50% sounds good, i.e. 40%. People who know they suck in a game but took part anyway shouldn't get penalized for ruining their average score with at least trying their best.



I think this is a pretty interesting and fair system, I am just afraid that instead of rising the participation rate it might have the opposite effect. That people feel like: "Who cares if I join this one week, I can't stand this game so why bother? I'll get an compensation anyway."

Or if you had a really bad week where you placed near the bottom, you shouldn't ask yourself why you didn't skip the week to get more points. Which would be true, if you screwed one week.

That said I am not absolutely against that proposal. I am just not too sure if it is actually helping to increase the playing rate. And also the "if you didn't play the week you won't get any points"-rule may sound harsh. But it is also fair to those people who joined a game which they didn't like or weren't good at.

That's at least what I think.

BTW, DJI:
Seems like your wound haven't healed yet, despite the avatar change.

[Rob]

If people want to place high in the individual charts then play every week.

[shoe-sama]

If people want to place high in the individual charts then play every week and get some skills.

Well said, well said.

[freddiebamboo]

Having a "can't-be-arsed-playing-this-week" bonus could just encourage more people to just not bother with games they don't like the look of or are bad at. We already had enough people only turning up for 1 or 2 weeks without rewarding them for it.

It's not a great challenge to play for an hour in a week to just show face in the hi score board if you don't like a game.

On the other hand DJI, if it means we can get some non mame weeks I'm all for it

And for those whose pc kicks it that week or they break an arm (I'm guessing these were not the reasons most missed weeks last year though) it is a nice gesture.

[Davey]

Mark it zero, next frame.

This is not 'Nam. This is shmups. There are rules.

[landshark]

I'm in favor of the 0-score as well. You don't play, too bad.

[Edge]

Provided nobody page-one's the Guidelines thread again, I'll hold off on the STGT stuff till this thing finishes.

Yo Edge! Suit up!

seems like someone did page one it again...


So regarding the last question and also the responses:
I say let's stay with no point compensation for the reasons I mentioned above. Offcourse we may still discuss this farther if you think point compensation is better suited.

[GaijinPunch]

I don't think people should be punished for missing a week. This isn't Gamefaqs... we aren't 13... real life will get in the way for many of us.

[Edge]

I absolutely see your point there, GP.

Though I am afraid if this rule will actually help to get competitors more satisfied in the end. I'll just quote the main concerns from my pretty confusing post above:

People who know they suck in a game but took part anyway shouldn't get penalized for ruining their average score with at least trying their best.

I think this is a pretty interesting and fair system, I am just afraid that instead of rising the participation rate it might have the opposite effect. That people feel like: "Who cares if I join this one week, I can't stand this game so why bother? I'll get an compensation anyway."

So, yeah we all have a real life and might not be able to invest much time into a game every playing week. But, I say if you don't have much time in a week I think it isn't much asked to give the game a few shots in the timeframe of one week. Even if it was a busy week, you might still play a few rounds on saturday. So, to make sure you'll get at least some points.

The point compensation may lead to more cherry picking and people procastinating more dropping the play rate even more and this leading to more frustration among the other players. But I do agree that the intend of the point compensation is pretty reasonable and a solid concept. Still I think that it would hurt more than it would help.

That's my 2 cents anyway, if you disagree please post so and help us with this discussion.

[Rob]

The major problem is the amount of points compensated. I guess if it's 50% of their avg. or something that would be low enough to not encourage taking it. Would these points be calculated at the end of the tournament?

[DJ Incompetent]

I guess if it's 50% of their avg. or something that would be low enough to not encourage taking it.

See, that's what I was thinkin'. A 40-50% would be enough to keep you in the game, but the player would definitely lose when comparing himself against equal players. I'm wonderin' a bit if all those that voted no read this part

Would these points be calculated at the end of the tournament?

From what was decided up earlier, Yes


The whole ruling sounds too up in the air, but...

Still I think that it would hurt more than it would help.

..may sum it up best. This question should be brought back another year though, starting with just "after all weeks end, players playing all weeks but one get 40% of average points added to the single missed week."

No

QUESTION

Code: Select all

Setup a committee for Shortlist deciding? (establishing roles, not needing to choose members yet)

Should other people besides Edge acting alone, have a hand in deciding what the five games should be up for voting during the voting weeks?
If so, how should the roles be decided?

---going off my notes I jotted down last year---

We could play off that Big List Short List system from the hidden gem week, just assign a guy to track all game nominations for (all) predetermind week themes and use the main STGT thread or something similar to maintain a list based of forum opinions and recommendations of what games Edge should finally test to meet his standards to make the shortlist.

Or Edge's initial tasks could be evenly divided into a more standard committee among several users:
-One guy researches bugs, scoring exploits, and scoring imbalances (read: Cleo in Star Force).
-One guy reseraches/sometimes-plays to determine playability, deciding on scoring mechanics most sutible for the given week theme, and backchecking if the game doesn't already have a giant score board.
-the last guy obtains & plays the games cleared by the other two members, then reasonably decides if a game is a cakewalk for a greater number of tourney contestants. This player also attempts to create unpopular scoring exploits and/or infinite milks of his own to disqualify the game.

---end of notes---

Edge, I'd advise you take point and lead this discussion. You know best what "the committee" should be looking for and how time-intensive each task could get.


Of course, everybody with their own ideas on how this committee should be formed, by all means, post your opinion.

[DJ Incompetent]

BTW, DJI:
Seems like your wound haven't healed yet, despite the avatar change.

Indeed.

Every good avatar needs a backstory


A lot of time has passed.

I remember there were several requests for a committee of players to decide and approve the short list of games instead of just Edge. If this is no longer the case, the game choosing process should just resume the same as '06 did and Edge just does his thing....




I'll hold till the weekend to await feedback before moving on.

[DJ Incompetent]

Going once...
Going twice...

[Icarus]

A committee will take far too long to decide the shortlist for the week, unless they start discussing it a fortnight before. Could give it a try and see if it works out, however. I wouldn't be too optimistic about the results, though.

[GaijinPunch]

I think that would bea complete can of worms. Majority rules should work... You know, what the US doesn't do to pick the President.

[Edge]

I have tried to think of a way how to set up a committee for the game selection, but couldn't come up with any good solution...

There are several problems, first how would this committee be set up. Also those "who are voted in or chosen by the organizers" should be neutral in the way they were analyzing the game. There's the chance that people might try to use their postition in the committee to exploit the game selection in favor of their team. (Offcourse one person, the organizer alone, can do the same so...)

Among other aspects, also I couldn't think of a good way how to split the game analyzing and judging work.


But that said, I do believe that with the help of others, or the whole community we could get a better selection for each week's theme. Maybe if we try to do something similiar like in the hidden gem week and enhance that formular a bit... ?

The week themes for the STGT need to be discussed before the actual tournament starts. So maybe we should have a thread where you can suggest themes and games for each theme and write an opinion about a game or state scoring bugs or other problems in those games. The first post of this thread could have a daily updated list of all recomendations and some infos on it: Does port exists, known score problems, # of HS table entries, position in the annual vote. .... or something alike.

[Icarus]

Bumping this shit to get it going again.

My comments:

• The committee should be formed from forum members who are not registered to the tournament to compete. That should ensure that the shortlist isn't stacked to favour those teams who have members on the selection committee.
• Nominations for committee members maybe?
• Perhaps have committee members with a range of playing skills and experience, so that objective discussion and analysis of potential selections can be made (i.e gameplay discussion, bug checking etc).
• Themes should be decided by the committee well in advance of the voting week (maybe even the start of the tournament itself), and games should be discussed and shortlisted again in advance of the voting weeks.
• About themes: perhaps have the registration period a lot earlier than the start of the tournament (3 wks? 4 wks?) so that registered players and the committee can discuss ideas?

A little off the current topic: perhaps it's better to have a longer registration period this time, so that returning teams can have a chance to contact each other to see if they can participate and make arrangements if that isn't possible?

[Edge]

The committee should be formed from forum members who are not registered to the tournament to compete. That should ensure that the shortlist isn't stacked to favour those teams who have members on the selection committee.

This is an interesting idea, but I wonder if it will be going to be so easy. As most people who are interested and willing to put some time into it would probably also be interested in playing at the STGT. Though we might find some, but I guess it will be difficult. And nominations would be a good idea for this. Also despite the fact that they should be good informed and look out for scoring bugs etc., they should be trying to be pretty objective. I think it is a nice idea, but I am not sure if people want to put in so much effort just to be a "judge" for game selection... Do you have a certain member(s) in mind or just wanted to point out the concept?

If we have not too ambitious players, who also join the STGT, but still try their best to be as objective as possible it might work as well. But if people are trying to be objective or are abusing their power is always difficult to judge in advance.

Themes should be decided by the committee well in advance of the voting week (maybe even the start of the tournament itself), and games should be discussed and shortlisted again in advance of the voting weeks.

Offcourse, themes should be decided early on, but we had the same on the STGT06, just that it was an open discussion and the organizer formed a final list after it.

About themes: perhaps have the registration period a lot earlier than the start of the tournament (3 wks? 4 wks?) so that registered players and the committee can discuss ideas?[/list]A little off the current topic: perhaps it's better to have a longer registration period this time, so that returning teams can have a chance to contact each other to see if they can participate and make arrangements if that isn't possible?

I was thinking the same, so if we announce the whole tournament early enough, people have enough time for getting in their teams and also have a discussion about the themes or shortlisted games.

How many members should the committee consist of?

I was thinking of maybe 3 persons. As they still could have enough diversion and as it they could in critical decisions decide by voting.

[Pirate1019]

I say that if you're worried about people on the committee working the shortlist in favor of their team, then just have the committee consist of one person from each team (captain, maybe?). The committee would be huge and it would probably take longer to shortlist stuff, but it's the only way I could think of to guarantee fair results besides Icarus' idea involving non-competitors.

[Edge]

I say that if you're worried about people on the committee working the shortlist in favor of their team, then just have the committee consist of one person from each team (captain, maybe?). The committee would be huge and it would probably take longer to shortlist stuff, but it's the only way I could think of to guarantee fair results besides Icarus' idea involving non-competitors.

I don't agree there, because most people would then try to influence the poll of their team's or their favor. And if the committee becomes too big, people may not remember their responsibilty, such a committee has. And therefore just vote for their favourite games or what they think is best for their teams and the result wouldn't be objective at all. That's at least what I think.

[Rob]

I'm objective. Count me in.

[Pirate1019]

You're probably right. I figured that having one from each team would balance any sort of influence, but that wouldn't happen. Especially if the committee was made up of the captains. You should just do it like last year. Or have DJI or somebody help you out and don't assign certain duties to each person. That way you have somebody to bounce ideas back and forth with.

[Icarus]

This is an interesting idea, but I wonder if it will be going to be so easy. As most people who are interested and willing to put some time into it would probably also be interested in playing at the STGT.

Not necessarily. There might be some who might be interested in the tournament might not be able to play (no MAME, hardware not up to the task, no consoles etc etc).

And nominations would be a good idea for this. Also despite the fact that they should be good informed and look out for scoring bugs etc., they should be trying to be pretty objective. I think it is a nice idea, but I am not sure if people want to put in so much effort just to be a "judge" for game selection... Do you have a certain member(s) in mind or just wanted to point out the concept?

Getting informed is as easy as making a quick trip to the strategy forum, or asking a quick question in any STGT discussion thread.

And nope, was just throwing the idea out.
Got no nominees in mind at the moment.

I was thinking the same, so if we announce the whole tournament early enough, people have enough time for getting in their teams and also have a discussion about the themes or shortlisted games.

Sounds good. I'm not even sure if the majority of namakoteam will be able to participate this time around as everyone is pretty busy with work, side projects, studies and other things now.

How many members should the committee consist of?

I was thinking of maybe 3 persons. As they still could have enough diversion and as it they could in critical decisions decide by voting.

Three is a good number. Small, quick to discuss things, and should be easy to come to a decision via voting if required.

[DJ Incompetent]

Man, I didn't realize this got replies way back when. My bad.

The week themes for the STGT need to be discussed before the actual tournament starts. So maybe we should have a thread where you can suggest themes and games for each theme and write an opinion about a game or state scoring bugs or other problems in those games. The first post of this thread could have a daily updated list of all recommendations and some infos on it: Does port exists, known score problems, # of HS table entries, position in the annual vote. .... or something alike.

So, you wanna launch twin threads:
-You could do the main thread which will first serve as registration and team roster arrangements. That thread would later become the formal announcements and general misc. issues thread. It would still be the main hub thread to which all other threads are referenced from.
-Then the second thread will first serve as week theme discussion. The thread would later become a big-list-short-list discussion or public knowledge base of scoring bugs & other game-for-tourney problems for upcoming weeks with a wide range of potential game choices.

We could play off that Big List Short List system from the hidden gem week, just assign a guy to track all game nominations for (all) predetermined week themes and use the main STGT thread or something similar to maintain a list based of forum opinions and recommendations of what games Edge should finally test to meet his standards to make the shortlist.

Danny just hit me up recently asking to help. He could probably run that pretty easy. It's just taking public discussion of points for-&-against games and summarizing...sorta like a high score table, but with sentences.

Or you can even have a 3-man committee further look into games the public has shaped with the Big List Short List system. That would probably narrow down potential widescale bias.





If I had to nominate anybody for a committee, I'd say somebody from Team Loser (if BM [justifiably] wouldn't do it). Danny maybe. Super Laydock says he can't play; maybe he has time to run a few google searches. Davey is level-headed.

If the member nominated from a team didn't have the team place in the top 5 last year and isn't the top player for that team, I wouldn't mind him deciding games. I would assume a committee could smell bias from one member, and all these guys are doing is picking 5 games for the forum to vote on. Checks 'n Balances are there.

[Danny]

About the hidden gems section of the trouney. Assueming that last year's choice is not allowed to be selected I assume that the rest of the nominations are fair game or will there a cool down period for variaty?

Edit: If there is a cool down period I suggest making it for one year.

Also I think having two seaprate leagues (major and minor leagues? or is that to much like baseball!? ) is a good idea. It will give players who are not all that confedent in there skills more insentive to enter and continue playing in the trouney as they will be amoungst people of roughly there own skill. Then again I might be wrong or echoing stuff that's already been said so I'll shut up...

Edit: Also when it comes to submitting games for the trouney (I am thinking more "hidden gems" here!) you might want to see what changes have been made to the game since it's been released on MAME. Recently I enterd another hi-score trouney and Robotron was selected but due to it being emulated differntly on newer versions of MAME we had to make sure that users were using an up to date version because aprently there were some considerable differnaces between new and old versions even though I could not notice them myself but it was a big enough of an issue for some to make a big thing out of it.

[Super Laydock]

Super Laydock says he can't play; maybe he has time to run a few google searches.

Hey, I´d be honoured to help out, but I never said I couldn´t play (well can´t remember saying that anyway).

[Pirate1019]

How would danny go about doing his job though? Would he create a topic for nominations to put on the biglist and then just ask people for opinions/concerns on the games and then he would edit the first post of the thread to show the pros/cons of each game? That's what I thought of after reading DJI's post. So would he decide which games got shortlisted or would you use a committee? Maybe Danny, DJI, and Edge? Or switch one of them out and put Super Laydock in?

[Danny]

From what I gather, people nominate games to be played and then somebody (maybe me, that's up to DJI and Edge) keeps track of all the pros and cons as well as how popular each nomination is. I would assume the commite would decide what games are shortlisted.

[Davey]

Davey is level-headed.

I am totally awesome and all, but I probably don't have the required breadth of knowledge to make a good, representative short list (which is why I don't vote in the annual Top 25 list). However, if it's just a matter of taking an existing list and whittling it down to a small list of best candidates, I can probably help with that. Basically, I'd like to help, but I'm not sure how helpful I can be.

I might play this year, maybe not. If I do, I definitely won't be a team captain, nor will I be on a top tier team.

[Rob]

There will be no hidden gem week.