WAR SEASON II: Discussion

[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.

[Felly]

I think I'm going to back off of this after I make this post, I just want to respond to these three posts because I feel there's some misunderstanding. Comments again in bold, except for my response to Lord Celebi because it's the last quote.

@Felly - Nah, it's fine. Just a few things though.

There was talk to do away with the WAR and replace it with something else that feels uniquely different, but still incorporates a "something for everybody" kind of setup where writing, art, battling, and so on all contributes toward the event. But this kind of feedback helps when it comes to designing such a thing.



Yeah, I can back this one up. Things wouldn't feel as frantic and there would be bigger grace periods so that people could take their time and/or take part in sections they normally would have given lower priority. Instead of four weeks, we could make it something like six weeks, but have three rounds of submissions and judging.

This works too, I just feel a larger submission and judging period would allow for more people to enter rather than having people rush their entries. However y'all want to work it out is up to you.



This might be a possibility, but only if we had a bigger community and more judges. If you look at the judge application thread, we only had just enough to get by. But even if we had enough, I think two judges from different teams would make sense and would probably be enough. Three judges would be hard because now, in order to work out scores, everyone would have to be online at the same time to discuss. That's the tricky part.

There were two people who wanted to judge Graphic Art, you and Xaiaku. I agree that the judges should be from different teams and not the same team, yes. Not everyone would need to be online to work out scores though. It would just be three different people sending their scores to one person, whoever they decide to do that, and posting them for the users to see. You get critique from three different people and see how three different people scored you. You get the scores from all three judge, not just one. You just drop the lowest one in the event of a tie, but you don't really have to do that here if you don't want to. Plus the judges can enter the event they're judging too, but they can't judge their own entry.



I kind of need to disagree with this one. Using the Olympics as a model, it's possible for two people from the same country to get a medal for the same event.

First point I'd like to make is if you put this into action, if someone from one team makes a really stellar entry, it pretty much says buzz off to anyone of intermediate or beginner skill from taking part in the same section, and thus, kind of makes it an elitist event where even the newbies won't be considered. We definitely don't want that.

It doesn't really say that because everyone should still be scored as normal and receive critique as usual. The only difference is only one entry per team would be eligible for a top three position. Which entry it is is up to the judge(s), but all would be judged and scored as normal.

Second, you could have three great submissions from people all in Team A. Barely anyone else takes part except for Team B, which only has one trashy submission, and Team C, which only has trashy submission. Should those trashy submissions really get the points just because Team A already got their points? Doesn't seem right in my opinion. Also, it might cause people to start thinking "oh, only two teams are taking part, let me quickly slap something together just so I get the last point!" Points should go to the team that put forward the best effort, not the ones that found loopholes in the system...

I answered this in my reply to Elbub, but there should be some reason to it. Obviously if only three teams take part and the third team's entry is a trashy submission to get a point, then two people from the same team should get the points. I'm not saying give trashy submissions points, I'm saying that three different people from three different teams should get points, but within reason. If you have three teams entering and those three teams each post at least one phenomenal entry, but only two teams got the top 3 places, why should that third team be exempt from points?

Third, if you find the 40.5 gap "disgusting and appalling," well, the teams on the lower end of that gap probably either needed more members and/or needed to have more members taking part. We might be able to fix that if something like a member ceiling is put into place so teams are kind of evened out a little better (it'll probably never be a perfect balance, but it'll be closer. Still, if Team B simply just doesn't take part as much as Team A, should they really both have the same kind of score at the end of the day? Again, I think the target should be trying to find ways to balance teams to some degree so points and awards are still earned through great effort and hard work.

Please, please, please don't make this about how many people are on a team. Please. It should not be about how many people are on a team. The amount of people on any given team should have nothing to do with how well they do in WAR. A 5 man team should be able to do just as well as a 20 man team. One has to do more work, which leads to overextension, but a 5 man team should still be able to do just as well as a 20 man team. The current system feels biased towards larger teams, and that's not fair. WAR shouldn't be about how many people you can recruit to a team, though it's great that you can do that and even greater that more people are coming to PXR as a result. It should be about how well individuals do in events. If Team A has 5 people and Team B has 20 people, both teams should be able to get about as many points assuming both teams are participating in as many events as they want to/are able to. The current system makes it feel like because Team A has 5 people and they're doing just as much work as Team B, who has 20 people, Team B gets more points because they have more people to spare for entering specific events and therefore have more submissions. Both put out the same quality of work and the same effort, but because Team B can put more submissions in, Team A misses out on points. Why should Team A miss out on points because Team B has more people?

I think I'd be open to a member draft in the future, but only if all the teams that are involved are voted on and definitely show care and quality to their creation. The last thing anyone would want is to be drafted into a weird and awkward team that no one but the leader themselves likes. As for the way the draft is handled, I'd probably model a system like that based on the NFL draft, but beginning draft order would probably have to be randomized for that scenario. With six teams, there's a good chance they'll all get a good share of decent ones.

You could let team leaders make their teams, and then everyone else signs up with their top 3 teams. After that, they get drafted into the teams based on their selections. This way people still get teams they like and can still pick their team, but the leaders are drafting them onto their team. I didn't suggest a draft in my post because I knew there were some people totally against the idea, but I am in support of it. Just a suggestion there on the drafts.

I think it's a bit extreme to say the difference in points was "appalling and disgusting"... Why is that? I feel like this is the closest WAR in a long time, if not ever. It's very rare that 3 teams are in legitimate contention for first place during the final week. You can't really expect everything to be even when every individual has a different skill and participation level. Heck, each of the top three individual scorers on their own pretty much scored more points than any of the teams outside the top three.

I think it's great that this WAR is the closest in a long time, if not ever. I think it's great that there was legitimate competition in the final week. Those things are great. I'm not bashing on anyone here because it's no one's fault that this happened, it's just how the system was set up to be, I think, and that's why I'm here posting my thoughts with the hopes that it can be changed. What disgusts me is that a 40.5 point gap between third and fourth was possible in the first place. It feels wrong. I feel it's an issue with the system, not with the people and their participation though. I feel like the fact that two people from the same team being able to earn points in the same section contributed to this, and other teams that made equally good entries and put in the same amount of effort miss out on points as a result and therefore can't get points in that section for that week. There's nothing wrong with the participation though, I'm actually glad that that happened here on PXR.

I think the scores also prove the point I was trying to make before the WAR, in that the distribution of certain individuals is more important than team size if you are trying to make things "fair". If the top 3 individual scorers were on the same team, that 3-person team would have beat every other team's point totals for this WAR. It just so happened that they were all on different teams which made for a good race. That's not something that can be controlled, because no one knows who is going to have the time/put in the effort/like the prompts enough to win a good majority of events before the WAR starts that year. Last year's top scorers were completely different.

This is true. We don't know who the top scorers will be until things start, but we can control which teams get points during the event by not giving two people of the same team points in the same event in a given week.

So as far as limiting entries to one scoring entry per team, I oppose that due to what Neo said. But also because if you wanted to place restrictions it would make more sense to limit individuals in that each person can only enter 1 or 2 events each week. That would also eliminate the need to extend the submission period for events from 1 to 2 weeks as there would only be 1 or 2 things for individuals to focus on rather than trying to enter 5-6 events.

All entries would be scored as normal. It's not just scoring one entry, it's just one entry, per team, gets one of the top three places. I also expanded on this when responding to Neo. I don't feel we should restrict the number of events people want to enter though. I think people should be able to enter as many events as they feel like. If you restrict the number of events people can enter, you may be asking people to choose between events they really want to enter. For example, if you restricted it to two events, I would personally be choosing between URPG, Graphic Art, Showdown, and Creative Writing, plus maybe GCEA & ASB, as my two events. Why should I, or anyone else who may want to enter several events like me, be restricted in what events we enter? If you restrict the number of submissions per team that can earn points in a given event like I'm suggesting, you're not restricting anyone from entering events, everyone should still be putting their best foot forward, everyone still gets to enter events as per usual, but only the best scoring submission of a team would be able to get top 3.

Agreeing with Neo on the judging panels. It's a nice idea but we don't/didn't have a big enough memberbase or enough interested people to do it.

I feel this way too, but you never know. Just a suggestion nevertheless. As a side note, some of the judges that judge things like Showdown could judge two different events, like what Sabi did with Showdown and Graphic Art this year. I feel if you have a judge that wants to judge more than one thing, you should let them, but only if they feel comfortable doing it and can handle the task presented.

And yeah, WAR probably won't be happening again but it's good to get ideas for future events. :)

Since the WAR is finally over, I think I can speak a bit more freely.

Dude, it's an Internet game. Chill. More bureaucracy is going to make the next WAR (if there's a next WAR) even more of a headache.

I am chill. I'm not posting all of this because my team didn't get top three or because I'm mad we lost. I'm not posting this because I was on a team with only 9 people. I'd still be posting all of this even if my team had won the WAR or if I was on a larger team. I'm posting this because I see issues with the current system of WAR and I feel they should be brought to light so that they can be fixed. I'm trying to be reasonable and calm here, and I'm not trying to start any drama. I'm sorry if it comes off that way, but it's not what I want to do. Even if there's not another WAR for whatever reason, these suggestions can be used in whatever similar large scale event you guys come up with. I'm merely making suggestions and responding to the comments on those suggestions because I feel there's some misunderstanding.

I will, however, apologize for the comments about the 40.5 points thing. While I do believe it's disgusting, it was probably a bit uncalled for, so I do apologize for that. I do also believe it is an issue though, but it's with the current system, not with any of the WAR participants or judges.

[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.

[Lord Celebi]

I am chill. I'm not posting all of this because my team didn't get top three or because I'm mad we lost. I'm not posting this because I was on a team with only 9 people. I'd still be posting all of this even if my team had won the WAR or if I was on a larger team. I'm posting this because I see issues with the current system of WAR and I feel they should be brought to light so that they can be fixed. I'm trying to be reasonable and calm here, and I'm not trying to start any drama. I'm sorry if it comes off that way, but it's not what I want to do. Even if there's not another WAR for whatever reason, these suggestions can be used in whatever similar large scale event you guys come up with. I'm merely making suggestions and responding to the comments on those suggestions because I feel there's some misunderstanding.

I will, however, apologize for the comments about the 40.5 points thing. While I do believe it's disgusting, it was probably a bit uncalled for, so I do apologize for that. I do also believe it is an issue though, but it's with the current system, not with any of the WAR participants or judges.

It links into a wider point that people get really worked up about WAR for some strange reason. So many people complained about x or y because they cared so much about winning an Internet game that it just got petty.

Look, this is the same system we've been using for 13 years, give or take a draft. This is not a large enough system to warrant redistributive policies with points, and even if so, there is no fair way to do that without detracting from the meritocratic aspects of the WAR. These aren't like real economies where money begets more money. Teams have equal opportunity to earn enough points every week given the willingness of people to join their team and participate and their ability to achieve. That's it. This is supposed to be a fun and friendly competition for sport, not Little League Baseball (both in the everyone gets to go on 1st Base aspect and the crazy helicopter parents aspect of the metaphor). Your team isn't doing so good? Hate the players, not the game.

I realize that this sounds a little privileged coming from a member of this year's winning team, but I've also lost quite a lot of WARs too. If I really cared that much about winning, I wouldn't have been in charge of Aqua a billion times. I enjoy the WAR. The game, the banter, the people that play, and in recent years the organization have been aspects that really appealed to me.

Oh, and if it wasn't 10:30 at night I'd be happy to do some statistics and show how the point distribution roughly fell onto the normal curve.

[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/

[Suicune's Fire]

I'm not posting this because I was on a team with only 9 people. I'd still be posting all of this even if my team had won the WAR or if I was on a larger team. I'm posting this because I see issues with the current system of WAR and I feel they should be brought to light so that they can be fixed. I'm trying to be reasonable and calm here, and I'm not trying to start any drama. I'm sorry if it comes off that way, but it's not what I want to do. Even if there's not another WAR for whatever reason, these suggestions can be used in whatever similar large scale event you guys come up with. I'm merely making suggestions and responding to the comments on those suggestions because I feel there's some misunderstanding.

I will, however, apologize for the comments about the 40.5 points thing. While I do believe it's disgusting, it was probably a bit uncalled for, so I do apologize for that. I do also believe it is an issue though, but it's with the current system, not with any of the WAR participants or judges.

My team, which claimed second place, only had 8 members who scored at all. One was a judge. One scored .5 points. It DOES matter how large the teams are. More members on the team = more potential for people to participate. It's basic logic.

I'm offended that you would call that disgusting. I worked freaking hard for my 31.5 points. There was no bias with judging. How many people entered drawn art in week four? Four people. Three were on my team, and one was me. How many people entered ASB in week four? Four people. Three were on my team and one was me. Who entered sprite art? Four. Two were on my team, and one was me. Who entered CW? Three. One was me. I'm sorry, but your points seem rather invalid given that I worked for those points and you're saying that it's disgusting? Even indirectly, that's how I'm taking it. I know you worked hard too, and many others in non-placing teams (and those on placing teams), but it seems like you're complaining about the basics of teambuilding: getting people on the team, and getting people to compete. I didn't know Vultan, but he reached out to me, and ultimately that's why I joined his team. If you had reached out to me, I'd have joined yours. Sometimes it's about being proactive. You don't have to be friends with everyone--all it takes is some effort to ask people. You say the size of your team doesn't matter. It does matter, but what matters more is actually reaching out to people.

Suggesting that judges shouldn't be allowed to award more than one person on a team first, second or third sounds like it would not work at all. That would take away every fun, competitive aspect within your team, and like it's been said, people would be discouraged. If I saw that one of my team members had entered an awesome piece of art, then I'd be like, "Well obviously that'll win a place on the podium, so there's no point in me even bothering because even if the others aren't as good as mine, mine won't even be considered." It does not make sense. Like Sarah said, if that was a rule, then you may as well say "only one entry per week, per team." It would be terrible. I wouldn't even want to enter under those circumstances.


I wouldn't like to be drafted, because I feel like that takes away from some of the fun. However, maybe picking a top three would work, idk. What annoys me is that the WAR leaders are thinking of scrapping the whole contest because we had issues this year. I think that doesn't solve the problem... I love WAR! I know a lot of people do too.

A team cap seems more reasonable than drafting, in my opinion.

My only concern for a two-week submission period for one week is that the whole event will drag on. I think that many people were content with a four week schedule. As much as I enjoyed it, it was a relief when it was over. xD I can't imagine it going for eight weeks, although if we did a week and a half, that might be better. With a longer judging period, and maybe in that time, no themes are given out so that for a few days, people can relax and not worry about starting a new entry right away.

@PTGigi - user voting actually sounds like a cool idea if judging happened for a longer period. As stated before, there was a lack of interest in multiple judges. For instance, nobody wanted to judge GCEA, so it was pushed onto Comatose who didn't really want to do it. XaiakuX didn't even complete his judging and two other people had to step in. There was a judge application thread, and it's in the same section as this thread is. It's stickied, so it's all there. In March, there was a "Now seeking WAR leaders" announcement posted on PXR, but I see that there was no call for actual judges. That will definitely be a must next time. xD


At this point, I admire Team Swiftgallade. 1 point and no complaints. xD

[Felly]

I'm offended that you would call that disgusting. I worked freaking hard for my 31.5 points. There was no bias with judging. How many people entered drawn art in week four? Four people. Three were on my team, and one was me. How many people entered ASB in week four? Four people. Three were on my team and one was me. Who entered sprite art? Four. Two were on my team, and one was me. Who entered CW? Three. One was me. I'm sorry, but your points seem rather invalid given that I worked for those points and you're saying that it's disgusting? Even indirectly, that's how I'm taking it. I know you worked hard too, and many others in non-placing teams (and those on placing teams), but it seems like you're complaining about the basics of teambuilding: getting people on the team, and getting people to compete. I didn't know Vultan, but he reached out to me, and ultimately that's why I joined his team. If you had reached out to me, I'd have joined yours. Sometimes it's about being proactive. You don't have to be friends with everyone--all it takes is some effort to ask people. You say the size of your team doesn't matter. It does matter, but what matters more is actually reaching out to people.

I'm bowing out of the overall discussion because I can clearly see I've caused problems, which I apologize for. I've also already apologized for this as well, but I'll do it again. I'm sorry I offended people with my comment about how the 40.5 point gap between third and fourth place was disgusting. In no way was I trying to offend anyone with that statement; it was merely a poorly presented opinion that should've been kept to myself. I apologize now for any others I have offended with that statement, whether they've posted here in this thread or not.

I hope that maybe something comes out of this discussion, but I feel as if I should no longer take part. It was fun playing WAR with you guys during the brief weeks I participated in more than one section.

[Suicune's Fire]

I'm bowing out of the overall discussion because I can clearly see I've caused problems, which I apologize for. I've also already apologized for this as well, but I'll do it again. I'm sorry I offended people with my comment about how the 40.5 point gap between third and fourth place was disgusting. In no way was I trying to offend anyone with that statement; it was merely a poorly presented opinion that should've been kept to myself. I apologize now for any others I have offended with that statement, whether they've posted here in this thread or not.

I hope that maybe something comes out of this discussion, but I feel as if I should no longer take part. It was fun playing WAR with you guys during the brief weeks I participated in more than one section.

Felly, I understand. I'm sorry for snapping. I know that WAR is flawed and I'm sorry. It's difficult to come up with solutions, and it would be unfair to shoot down any suggestions for change.

Your input IS valuable and I apologise for any negativity shown your way, including from me. Thanks for speaking up. :] Hope I'm not contradicting myself. xD

[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.