WAR SEASON II: Discussion

[Morzone]

As a War contestant, I personally think haveing only one week per is one of the best parts of WAR. Its a deadline, and the point of deadlines isn't to make you rush, it's to make you think. If you don't have time to rethink every choice or idea, you come up with more originality, more fun, more You in your entries. If you're having trouble because of to many things you have to do, then remind yourself that you're part of a team. You don't have to do every category.

I also disagree with the whole "not giving points to two people of the same team" thing. You can't do that. That's telling people that if someone on their team is a winner that they can't be a winner as well. You might as well only have one entry per team if you limit it like that.

I'm not a judge though so I can't really say anything about the judge panel thing.

Just my 2 cents.

[LKWayvern]

Although more time would be awesome(I had finals during the second week of WAR), I see Morzone's point about how despite being frantic, more of yourself bleeds through.
I guess I see the merits of both sides. You can take writing it a bit slower and easier, have more time to come up with a good, well thought out idea, polish it up and smooth out the rough edges, really make it shine. But you might get too caught up in the editing, or get too worried about its' quality or quantity if you let it sit for too long.

[Neo Emolga]

Felly, I think Rust is right on the money with this one. It's a game, and it's just meant to be casual, simple fun.

No matter how much tweaking or tinkering you do with the system, you're never going to have a perfect layout where every team is perfectly tied every week. We've heard your suggestions, but in the end, it's probably best to just enjoy it for what it is. Work with the disadvantages the best you can. A good competitor wouldn't complain about the system so it's easier for them to win. A good competitor would improve their skills and work with the system that's in place, and be resourceful to shoot for the best scores they can.

In the past, on PE2K, we've changed the WAR format in all different shapes, formats, and layouts. They all have their advantages and disadvantages and every scenario has brought different situations, but there was no one instance where it truly felt "perfect." Sure, we could change it again, but I don't think it would actually affect all that much in the end. This year, we simply tried to make it as relaxed and as casual as possible without all kinds of strange, hard-to-understand parameters, regulations, rulings, and restrictions. Join the team you want to. Take part in whatever you want to. Start a team if you want to. Have as many members as you want. We simply wanted it to be free and fun, and honestly, if there is any kind of event like this in the future, I still feel it's the better way to go in the end.

And hey, if you're still not crazy about the whole thing, you've always been welcome to start a new event or gather ideas for planning your own kind of competition.

[Elysia]

Hi. Um. I'm still not a fan of writing out massive paragraphs of text in this thread that eventually lead into circular arguments with people, but I wanted to say something that I think Felly feels but hasn't clearly articulated (although if she doesn't feel this way, feel free to correct me lol ooops).

Constructively pointing out what you perceive as a flaw in an existing system shouldn't be perceived as hating the entire system itself. That's silly. Like. Let's say you go to Disney World. Day one, you have a great time, ride the roller coasters, buy some deliciously overpriced funnel cake or something idk, take pictures with the princesses, and so on. At the end of the day, you go back to your hotel, sit in your poofy, Mickey-themed bed, and think, "Gee, that was awesome, but it was super hot outside and I think I'm going to be sunburned tomorrow. Oh dear."

Perhaps you talk to your friends, who also agree that they're sunburned and that's kinda a downer. Perhaps you suggest to Disney that they build awnings over their longer lines so patrons don't wait out in the sun (which they actually did, but this is a ridiculously detailed rhetorical metaphor at this point). Perhaps you decide that a great way to fix this would be to bring a hat tomorrow (or to convince Disney to sell overpriced hats next to their overpriced other merch, which they also do!) "But I was at Disney World all day today," you tell yourself, "and I've never worn a hat!"

Um. What I'm trying to say is that it's possible to constructively point out flaws in something (what Felly/others (?) are trying to do) without attempting to completely tear it down and destroy it (what I'm afraid people perceive Felly/others (?) to be doing). You can go to Disney World, have a great time, get sunburned, dislike being suburned, and still have had a great vacation.

That being said:
=I think judging panels (or just two people, idk) for some of the more subjective categories would be something worth considering. I've taken part in a bunch of different art/writing-based contests on other forums, and this is the only system that relies on a single judge to dispense all of the scoring. I feel like the current system puts a ton of stress on the single judge (ie, Neo signing on to Week II of Creative Writing and finding out that there are novella-length submissions that he has to single-handedly read, evaluate, and rank in a span of twenty-four hours (sorry D:), not to mention setting up the next week). However, if current participation levels really aren't strong enough to merit two people per category judging, perhaps opening it up to user voting could be considered? I kinda see this as a dangerous line between popularity contest and actually working, but it'd be kinda cool if everyone was secretly a judge ^^
=This is probably just me being silly, but is there a reason why judges absolutely have to evaluate everything on Sundays? Like, it seems to be asking a lot of them to rank and grade things all in a single day, when we have six days to work on them (again, this is mostly for time-intensive categories like Creative Writing). Would it be possible to have a staggered system, kinda like:

Week One: WAR begins! Sunday - Saturday, contestants work on Week 1 entries. Sunday, new theme posted!
Week Two: Sunday - Saturday, contestants work on Week 2 entries. Judges judge Week 1 entries; judging due Saturday of Week 2 or something (or perhaps earlier if we want to scoreboard updated faster, idk). Sunday, new theme posted!

And so forth? I could see this tying in nicely with perhaps having more judges per category, since this frees up a lot of time.

Sorry, just my two cents. I had a great time at Disney World WAR with you guys.

[PTGigi]

Quick but important note: several people have PMed me WAR suggestions because they don't feel comfortable posting them publicly because of how suggestions are being received. May I politely ask the receivers of suggestions appear less hostile (there is a much better word for here, but I can't think of it at the moment)? I'm not saying to be like "YEAH LET'S DO ALL THE SUGGESTIONS!". In the end, I'd be okay if nothing changed. But I think no matter the situation, it's a bad sign if people feel like they can't speak openly...

I very, very much like Felly's two week suggestion, I personally felt very rushed especially with my schedule. It also might entice more people to do group discussions, I saw a few people asking their group for suggestions before they submit a piece and I honestly might have done that had I not only had time to work on entries Saturday with 0 time to ask for a double check. I don't think I see any negatives to a two week change.

I agree with more time for judges and the multiple judges ideas. I understand the forum size makes multiple judges a bit harder, but there is one thing that may not be just me: I really didn't notice the judging application thread at all. I maybe caught wind of it once, didn't really know what it was, and moved on. Had I known more, I probably would have happily applied to be a judge. So maybe a more vocal call for judges? Also a single judge system looks unfair. While I do not doubt the honesty of the judges, someone could make the argument that judges could have a bias towards individuals and/or teams. Again, I don't think this happened, but it was brought up by a few people.
Within the idea of more judges, I think there's a few ways that could go:
-A "committee" that gives out one score per person
-A panel of judges, each giving a different score that's then averaged (like the Olympics I think?)
-User voting (this might be better with the more judging time).
-A combination of a panel and user voting

The only other thing I might say, a final two cents on my opening point, is the "it's just a game" attitude. I completely understand what is meant by that, but at the same time that attitude can be used as a negative point. I hope I'm the only one who felt this way, but I honestly didn't enter the final week because of that. As fun as the prompts looked, I stopped caring and saw no reason to focus my energies on something that's "just a game". I regret feeling that way after the fact and I also apologize to my team for that.

---

That being said, I overall enjoyed WAR. I think we did pretty awesome, Prism League. Hope everyone had fun! This is making me want to set up some mini contests or something. I use to host a few on random forums every now (that are all dead ;0; ), so maybe it's something I should try start up again /o/

[Ganyu]

The only gripe that I agree with is that one week is quite short, especially for CW. But if the majority is fine with the one-week thing, then it doesn't have to be changed. After all, I don't intend to participate in writing contests that last for a week. (Sorry not sorry.)

Also agree with what Gigi said.

[monkeybard]

I'm bad at expressing myself, so I'll just say that I thought of teams in the WAR as secondary to the desire of winning a contest for myself. I joined the first team recommended to me in my Welcome Thread so that I can enter the pixel art competitions, did my best and decided I would try in the Drawn Art category as well seeing as I had time and I was curious as to how I would do and how I would be judged. The great thing about WAR is that I can treat it like a regular contest where I can pit my own abilities against other people. Despite this, there's still a sense of unity and shared pride when you see people from your team winning sections, and why I still felt a little disappointed that we couldn't take 1st place even though I participated for my own sake. And I think that's a really good thing! I'm fine with any changes you make as long as this feeling doesn't get taken away from the WAR :P

As for judging, I do like the idea of multiple judges (more insight and more commentary is great; I'd love to be a pixel art judge but I'm bad at making challenges and I'd want that second opinion!) but at the same time I wish there was a way to fairly have judges participate in the contests as well. I can't speak on her behalf for sure, but I'm positive that Speed-X would've wanted to try her hand at some of the challenges she put out and compete herself. :P At the very least, I'd want to see how a third party would rate my sprites against hers. I can see that doing a user voting system to allow everyone to participate would be great, but again, coming from someone that lives on the art boards of most forums he's ever been on, user voting never really works out that well. Especially with our Drawn Art board as stagnant as it is, it might work in the WAR season when everyone's a bit more active but I've seen forums try and make poll-based decisions before and I don't think it ever gets as many votes as you may want or even need.

In any case, I've been a member here for 2 weeks and don't really know anything, but at the very least I had fun and I hope something similar happens next year so I can have the full experience.

[Nekomata]

Okay, so I'll say a few things. Knowing me, this might turn a bit long.

First of all, it is my understanding that War is meant to be a team-based competition that is more about participating and having fun than being competitive. That said, I don't think it is quite living up to the potential it has to be a fun event. While I stopped participating after week one (long story short, got depressed/demotivated/etc.) I still lurked around to see what was going on in the various sections and saw some issues here and there that others were clearly upset over. I'd like to offer my thoughts on how to improve WAR to be a bit more fun and welcoming for everyone- even those who didn't score much during this year's war.

Judging:

First off, I must agree with several others regarding the judging. A panel of multiple judges would help tremendously. I hate to say it- and please take no offense- but everyone is biased. Whether or not they realize it, they're biased. I'm biased. It's just how people are. Now, I believe no one here was intentionally biased and probably tried their best to be as fair as possible- and it's not always easy.

That said, there's a reason most judging panels in almost every sort of competition that doesn't have a 'right or wrong' result (We don't need 3 judges to tell you 2+2=4 therefore you get points) has three or more judges. When it comes to creative stuff, one person may LOVE it, another may HATE it- there is no right/wrong in these sections. Just opinions. Yes, there are people who are better artists than others- that much is true- but when you have a handful of equally experienced artists- it's hard for one person alone to decide who gets placed higher. Artists have different styles- and none are necessarily better than another. Multiple judges would allow for people to more fairly rank these sections.

I'm familiar with how judging works because of my band days way back when. Region auditions were a huge thing- each individual student was expected to compete. The judges happened to be directors from various schools in the area- and thus, the auditions were undoubtedly corrupt. Despite not being able to see who was playing, some of the directors knew who their students were by certain warm-ups or how they sounded. After all- directors want their own students to succeed. Personally, I'm against judges being in teams because of this bias (again, not to say anyone here would do so)- but I understand we're lacking in enough people to judge as it is, let alone take them out of the competition.

So what I'm proposing- is we have three judges. Each gives their own score- then average the three for the final grade on each entry. Heck, if it's too much an issue to get 3 people to judge- allow judges to participate and just have the judge be unable to grade his/her own entry and leave theirs to the other judges.

--

Time:

I also agree that one week is a bit short for not only the members- but the judges. Some sections require more time than others- so perhaps, instead of having everything end on the same day, make the different events end at different times to accommodate those that may need more time- and likewise, sections that require less time (such as a recolor in the spriting part) could have less time for completion. This would be easier on people since all the deadlines aren't all on the same day, so people can better manage the time spent on entries.

Sort of like a busy restaurant would handle reservations. Some restaurants make great effort to NOT take large amounts of reservations at once because it puts a lot of stress on the wait staff and kitchen- instead, they'd try to spread out reservations so that the kitchen/staff have time to finish one table before another arrives.

Also, perhaps, allow more time for judges to judge- especially in sections like create writing were entries get... long. Really long. They can post up the next prompt before they start judging- I just think it might be a bit much to have them try judging things in such a short time- especially if members want good critiques/feedback.

--

Scoring:

Now, I know there's mixed reception on the fact that there was a 20 point gap between 3rd and 4th place. Some may see something wrong with it as part of the game is to get as many points as possible and the other teams just didn't put in enough effort. That's one of looking at it...

I, however, am concerned about such a wide gap. We want War to be a team event where /everyone/ can have fun participating, yes? And while 'it's just a game', some people still get very discouraged with such a huge gap- after all, what's the point of putting 5+ hours of work into an entry when there's a 0% chance of your team making it into the top three? I feel the gap in points contributed into declining participation rates in later weeks.

Likewise, another thing that may have participated people is never placing- or even being just ONE point from 3rd place. Never placing can be discouraging- it makes your efforts feel useless in the competition. Some people think it's fun to enter for the sake of entering- but this IS a competition and a lot of people want to help their team do well by doing well- and when they can't seem to get points- even after a lot of effort (some of the rounds were very close in 3rd/4th places, afterall)- it's so easy to just give up.

I'm not saying to LET people win rounds just to keep them happy- no. That's wrong. And I'm not for the idea of only allowing one person per team win points in a section- that would likewise discourage those who have trouble getting points. But we DO need a way to help balance it so all teams have a fair shot and all members are encouraged to participate, even if they don't think they'll place.

I spoke with Gigi a bit about this last night after finally breaking my silence on WAR stuff. I've got a proposed point system that may help encourage EVERYONE to participate and reward EVERYONE for doing so, thus encouraging more participation across the board- but still reward those with outstanding entries.

So, instead of just awarding points to the top three, everyone gets points. Wait, wait- hear me out! Let's say each section each week can give 100 points to teams (it's a nice number, so I'm using it). Let's also say that this is the drawn art competition and the judge/s can give players a score of 0-50. 50 being OMG PERFECT, 0 being no entry at all. After the judging is done, add up ALL the points given to each entry- let's say 8 people from 4 teams entered and had the following scores

A1: 50
A2: 10
B1: 20
B2: 30
C1: 40
C2: 20
D1: 10
D2: 20

Total points given via grades: 200

So, with the current system, only A1, B2, and C1 get points- everyone else might have put effort, but no points cause they're not top 3. This could discourage people like A2 or D1 from participating again- or teams like D2 if they fall too far behind in the scoreboards.

Instead of just giving points to the top three- add up the points each time got and find the percentage of the overall points they had. So it would be...

A Team: 60 Points (30%)
B Team: 50 points (25%)
C Team: 60 Points (30%)
D Team: 30 Points (15%)

Each team would get that percentage of the 100 points for that round- so Team A would get 30 points, B- 25, etc.

This rewards each member for participating- even if they didn't place at the top- it also rewards those who did really well by giving them more points. It would also help prevent such a wide gap in points by making it easier to get points instead of just the same people in the top 3 over and over. Yes, the teams that have those top 3 people will still get more points- but the gap in points would not get quite as wide and we'd likely see more participation as every feels like they're contributing something. This also means that person who BARELY got 4th place still gets rewarded for their efforts instead of that feeling of wasted time.

That brings us to the next section: Teams

The issue with the above scoring system is that larger teams have a huge advantage. Therefore, for it to work, there needs to be a limit on the number of people that can be in a team. I know this isn't a popular idea- but it would help balance the teams better. As it is now, large teams are already advantaged cause they have more opportunities to place- most systems will favor large teams. So, I propose a team cap- but no draft so people can still team up with friends. I don't know what the team cap should be- but it should be a balanced number- enough to have people with different talents in one team, but small enough so that not all the really active people end up on the same team and other teams are lacking in comparison. I'm thinking 5-7 might be nice, but I could be wrong. The above point system could also increase the overall activity- so there's that to consider too.

--

Aaand, sorry if I offended anyone- I just felt like I needed to say this. I'd love to see War be what it COULD be, not what it is now. Right now it puts too much pressure on individuals and not teams as a whole- and I believe making it more team oriented could ease that pressure and make it more enjoyable for everyone.

--

Edit: OH- and maybe have winning teams for each section then an overall winner. Cause there may be a team who does REALLY well in say... Creative Writing- but not so much outside of that. They should still be recognized for getting the most points in that section, even if they aren't 1st overall. This way some teams can go for winning in their specialized section even if they don't think they'll win WAR itself.

[Caite-chan]

The problem with all teams yes I said ALL is that everyone is gung ho about joining a team and by the time the WAR starts to the WAR ending half the team isn't doing anything. Team A starts with 20 people and by the end of WAR the team might have 6-10 people even trying to do anything. Don't waste a teams time if you'tr NOT going to do anything once the WAR starts.

[Morzone]

Well, I read through everyone's opinion (God, you people can write a lot some times) so I feel I should stick another 2 cents in.

For the whole putting limits on teams, there is many good points for doing that. I just want to remind people that who is on the team is just as important as how many people there are. Even if every team had the same number of people doesn't mean that they will be even. They may be closer to even, but I don't think it will really change a 20 point difference outcome. The prism league had 17 people and only 5 of us actually scored points. (credit and respect to all the other team members who put in entries, but didn't score, you guys are still awesome) With statistics like that, one could argue that a small team could do the same or even better than a large team. WAR isn't a game of chance, playing around with the numbers isn't going to even the scoreboard. That said, I also know it's impossible and immoral to control who is on what team via rules, so I'm really just reminding everyone that this isn't a problem with an easy answer.

I also have an idea for the judges, though it'd probably be even harder to do than getting enough judges for panels. What I suggest is this: judges who aren't part of a team. If the judges aren't connected or participating in any of the teams, then they can't really be biased toward them. Of course a panel of non-WAR-participating judges would be the most ideal, but I feel that's going a little too far into the realm of impossibility. If we scraped the bottom of the barrel this year, then maybe a better way of recruiting judges is needed. (idk who is in charge of this, sorry if it sounds like I'm saying you're not doing your job well enough, it's not what I want to imply in the slightest)

Finally: a note for people who felt discouraged in the early weeks due to differences in the overall scoring: Why do you care? The point of WAR isn't to single out who is good and who isn't, it's to have fun. I didn't look at the overall scores until WAR was over because I cared more about trying my best and having fun in the individual categories, as well as cheering for my team in areas I didn't join. Make friends! Learn and practice your skills! Try things you normally wouldn't! In this battlefield, the winners are the people who had the most fun. Happy WAR everyone.