Brawl #1 - Suggestions & Feedback

[Calindu]

[rant]

Don't allow pretty images in non-images needed tasks.

Round 1: Boss 2(Place 1)
Round 2: Deckbuilder 4, 1 and 6 respectively used images to show their CIA cards decks(Place 1, 2 and 3 respectively)
Round 4: Forum Expert 2(Place 1)

As you can see, who used pretty images in their stuff did better, this futures increases the need of the best Artist(Oh come on, we all know vrt did that task in Round 1 and 4).


Don't allow pretty colors and formatting at all.

The amount of pretty colors used when there isn't needed it's big, for a title I understand, but to write a full poem with colors(Yes Writer 6, I'm looking at you)?

Less points from votes, more points from judge.

The normal voter is biased towards what's prettier, not what's better.

Set a goal for Deckbuilder's decks which must be proven by screenshots in order to be validated.

Creativity is good, but having a deck that can't really work at all is silly.

[/rant]

That's all I have atm, if I have more ideas, I'm going to make my rant longer.

[ARTHANASIOS]

^This.
 By the way, the  based CIA deck was our submission, and despite I think it was one of the best decks around I can't deny we took 2nd place just because of our pretty CIA deck image (and I say this because I have understood the way most of voters think).

[OldTrees]

I recommend people calm down enough that they can be objective when it comes to critiquing the format and making suggestions.

Problems I have see:
1) I keep seeing reference to teammates voting for their team. This bias needs to be completely corrected. If it is not then all objective voting players will be at a disadvantage.

2) Submissions should be structured in a format that only provides relevant details (details that should be considered when voting). Aka the tool proposed and not the above and beyond effort of creating the actual tool. (Thanks for the tool ARTHANASIOS! +92 rep)

3) Experience needs to have a much larger impact. This could be accomplished by reducing the points from the vote or increasing the expert points.

4) Morale. Teams need to be more even (auction?). Points need to be a smaller scale. (Losing by 30% of a round's points feels worse when it is 30 points than when it is 3 points.)

[ARTHANASIOS]

I recommend people calm down enough that they can be objective when it comes to critiquing the format and making suggestions.
 I try to be calm but I can't achieve this always.

Problems I have see:
1) I keep seeing reference to teammates voting for their team. This bias needs to be completely corrected. If it is not then all objective voting players will be at a disadvantage.
 I have never said this is right, I just mentioned what really happens. In my opinion, Brawlers shouldn't be able to vote at all (their accounts should be blocked or something).

2) Submissions should be structured in a format that only provides relevant details (details that should be considered when voting). Aka the tool proposed and not the above and beyond effort of creating the actual tool. (Thanks for the tool ARTHANASIOS! +92 rep)
Irony doesn't help here, Oldtrees. Objectiveness does...

3) Experience needs to have a much larger impact. This could be accomplished by reducing the points from the vote or increasing the expert points.
I am not sure if this is a good suggestion.

4) Morale. Teams need to be more even (auction?). Points need to be a smaller scale. (Losing by 30% of a round's points feels worse when it is 30 points than when it is 3 points.)
 There is only one way to keep up the participant's morale. Objectiveness, fair voting, fair play.

[OldTrees]

I recommend people calm down enough that they can be objective when it comes to critiquing the format and making suggestions.
 I try to be calm but I can't achieve this always.
I usually find 8 hours of sleep reduces emotions by at least 30%

Problems I have see:
1) I keep seeing reference to teammates voting for their team. This bias needs to be completely corrected. If it is not then all objective voting players will be at a disadvantage.
 I have never said this is right, I just mentioned what really happens. In my opinion, Brawlers shouldn't be able to vote at all (their accounts should be blocked or something).
As I said, I would not think poorly of those that do. The ability to do so causes incentives such that it occurs. If all the authors were anonymous (including your team's) ...

2) Submissions should be structured in a format that only provides relevant details (details that should be considered when voting). Aka the tool proposed and not the above and beyond effort of creating the actual tool. (Thanks for the tool ARTHANASIOS! +92 rep)
Irony doesn't help here, Oldtrees. Objectiveness does...
This was mean to convey 2 things.
1) The organizers should try to get everyone to only submit voting relevant details (see Calindu's point about art).
2) Competitors should try to only submit voting relevant details.
The goal is to reduce biased voting by reducing the distraction that cause biased voting.

3) Experience needs to have a much larger impact. This could be accomplished by reducing the points from the vote or increasing the expert points.
I am not sure if this is a good suggestion.
I went back a double checked the fraction of expert points. In round 1 ~50/250 points were expert points. I have changed my mind since I feel 20% will be sufficient if popular vote biases are reduced.

4) Morale. Teams need to be more even (auction?). Points need to be a smaller scale. (Losing by 30% of a round's points feels worse when it is 30 points than when it is 3 points.)
There is only one way to keep up the participant's morale. Objectiveness, fair voting, fair play.
, roughly fair teams and compensation for bad luck demoralization.

[ARTHANASIOS]

^ Even so, actually creating the tool is a plus of the submission. Furthermore, Catapult Damage Calculator is a tool idea which can be used at greater extent and situations than the Automated War Auction tool, which is useful only at war and only during a very small part of it. I am not biased right now, just explain me with facts that the Automated War Auction is the most useful and original tool, more useful and original than Catapult Damage Calculator, more useful and original than the rest of the ideas. I bet you can't, because seriously it isn't...

[OldTrees]

^ Even so, actually creating the tool is a plus of the submission. Furthermore, Catapult Damage Calculator is a tool idea which can be used at greater extent and situations than the Automated War Auction tool, which is useful only at war and only during a very small part of it. I am not biased right now, just explain me with facts that the Automated War Auction is the most useful and original tool, more useful and original than Catapult Damage Calculator, more useful and original than the rest of the ideas. I bet you can't, because seriously it isn't...

The task was to design but not create a tool. I voted based on that criteria. A particular tool being actually created should not and did not influence whether I would vote for it or the code generator.

The Automated War Auction tool was more aesthetically pleasing. This should not but did influence voting.

I do think the Automated War Auction would have provided more benefit to more players than the Catapult Damage Calc (war players vs gravity players that don't have the wiki chart at hand). That said I have seen many more people struggle with coding tables, links and other forum post options.

[ARTHANASIOS]

The task was to design but not create a tool. I voted based on that criteria. A particular tool being actually created should not and did not influence whether I would vote for it or the code generator. However, you let the appearence of the submission to influence your vote. Except if Forum Expert is an Artist submission and aesthetics matter... Furthermore, my program, if you run it, has greater aesthetics than AWA submission, so even in aesthetics my sub has a plus, which you haven't taken it at your account for some reason...

The Automated War Auction tool was more aesthetically pleasing. This should not but did influence voting. This shows that people like me and Calindu are right of voting unfairness. This actually is a plus of my opinion and not of yours (see above).

I do think the Automated War Auction would have provided more benefit to more players than the Catapult Damage Calc (war players vs gravity players that don't have the wiki chart at hand). That said I have seen many more people struggle with coding tables, links and other forum post options. False, people participating in War are just a small part of people who hang around in forums, while players who play Catapult-based decks are both in the community and beyond it. Furthermore, the calculations made with CDC are much better than wiki's chart, since you can buff you creature, poison it, freeze it etc. and calculate its cost thereafter. Finally, Catapult's damage isn't an easy thing to calculate by yourself without using a program (all these things I've just mentioned are within the description, not the tool). So, seriously, CDC >>> AWA.

[MyNameIsJoey]

Spoiler for Hidden:

[rant]

Don't allow pretty images in non-images needed tasks.

Round 1: Boss 2(Place 1)
Round 2: Deckbuilder 4, 1 and 6 respectively used images to show their CIA cards decks(Place 1, 2 and 3 respectively)
Round 4: Forum Expert 2(Place 1)

As you can see, who used pretty images in their stuff did better, this futures increases the need of the best Artist(Oh come on, we all know vrt did that task in Round 1 and 4).


Don't allow pretty colors and formatting at all.

The amount of pretty colors used when there isn't needed it's big, for a title I understand, but to write a full poem with colors(Yes Writer 6, I'm looking at you)?

Less points from votes, more points from judge.

The normal voter is biased towards what's prettier, not what's better.

Set a goal for Deckbuilder's decks which must be proven by screenshots in order to be validated.

Creativity is good, but having a deck that can't really work at all is silly.

[/rant]

That's all I have atm, if I have more ideas, I'm going to make my rant longer.

I support this 100%. But not only on art. On a submission, should be given only what is asked. If i take deckbuilder for example since it is my role, The round says : Create a deck that ... It does not say : Write a text that fits the deck and that people will vote for.

[OldTrees]

The task was to design but not create a tool. I voted based on that criteria. A particular tool being actually created should not and did not influence whether I would vote for it or the code generator. However, you let the appearence of the submission to influence your vote. Except if Forum Expert is an Artist submission and aesthetics matter... Furthermore, my program, if you run it, has greater aesthetics than AWA submission, so even in aesthetics my sub has a plus, which you haven't taken it at your account for some reason...Please be careful with your accusations. I did not let aesthetics influence my vote. Recognition of a problem does not necessitate being part of the problem. (Did you mistakenly think I voted for AWA?) I did not run your program because benefiting from its utility might have biased my voting. For those influenced by aesthetics, usually the aesthetics on the cover have a greater impact than those inside.

The Automated War Auction tool was more aesthetically pleasing. This should not but did influence voting. This shows that people like me and Calindu are right of voting unfairness. This actually is a plus of my opinion and not of yours (see above). Have you read my opinion? I do think aesthetics played an unfair role. However I am for removing all potential biases rather than merely the ones that favored Nyan Sharks.

I do think the Automated War Auction would have provided more benefit to more players than the Catapult Damage Calc (war players vs gravity players that don't have the wiki chart at hand). That said I have seen many more people struggle with coding tables, links and other forum post options. False, people participating in War are just a small part of people who hang around in forums, while players who play Catapult-based decks are both in the community and beyond it. Furthermore, the calculations made with CDC are much better than wiki's chart, since you can buff you creature, poison it, freeze it etc. and calculate its cost thereafter. Finally, Catapult's damage isn't an easy thing to calculate by yourself without using a program (all these things I've just mentioned are within the description, not the tool). So, seriously, CDC >>> AWA. You consider the small fraction of the Gravity players that play catapult decks is larger than the small fraction of players than try to enter War. I think it is reversed especially when you consider the organizers would implement the AWA while the Catapult tool would only be used by a fraction of Catapult players. This causes me to disagree with your conclusion. (Using 3 ">" implies to me that you are still not sufficiently compensating for either the authorship bias or the frustration you have towards Nyan Sharks.)

[ddevans96]

When full cards are posted, like in round 4, and people are expected to vote only for the art, that's just wrong. People will be biased no matter what. Post only the art, in a large size so people don't have to zoom into to see the detail, because people will not do that and their vote will be flawed.

[Naesala]

[rant]

Don't allow pretty images in non-images needed tasks.

Round 1: Boss 2(Place 1)
Round 2: Deckbuilder 4, 1 and 6 respectively used images to show their CIA cards decks(Place 1, 2 and 3 respectively)
Round 4: Forum Expert 2(Place 1)

As you can see, who used pretty images in their stuff did better, this futures increases the need of the best Artist(Oh come on, we all know vrt did that task in Round 1 and 4).


Don't allow pretty colors and formatting at all.

The amount of pretty colors used when there isn't needed it's big, for a title I understand, but to write a full poem with colors(Yes Writer 6, I'm looking at you)?

Less points from votes, more points from judge.

The normal voter is biased towards what's prettier, not what's better.

Set a goal for Deckbuilder's decks which must be proven by screenshots in order to be validated.

Creativity is good, but having a deck that can't really work at all is silly.

[/rant]

That's all I have atm, if I have more ideas, I'm going to make my rant longer.

Certain tasks we think images can be included in order to make a point. In the future, we will make sure to let people know which ones we will or will not allow pictures for. This goes for decks with text as well. I think "nice" formatting is just a way of constructing your posts, but I will talk with UT and/or whoever is Brawlmaster next time to see their thoughts. Deckbuilding rounds voters are already supposed to vote based on theme and funcionality (except when stated otherwise).

Thanks for the feedback