WAR SEASON II: Discussion

[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.