Brawl #1 - Suggestions & Feedback

[Jocko]

Well, I wouldn't mind if there was no public voting and just a broader and more specific experts panel (what i mean by specific, like OT voting for the card, vrt for the art, etc). I understand why you don't want to remove public voting though, it kinda cuts the whole community stuff out.
What if, each round, the two less voted teams (or individuals) go to a public voting, and the loser gets cut from the event?

[furballdn]

Well, I wouldn't mind if there was no public voting and just a broader and more specific experts panel (what i mean by specific, like OT voting for the card, vrt for the art, etc).

A voting panel would be nice, but making one person in charge of one part wouldn't be a good idea because then bias would play a very large role.

[ARTHANASIOS]

Or we could just remove voting altogether and have anyone who's not participating apply for being a judge and give 1-2 points for each judge's vote (the Council Members would still be voting). Votes would be sent in via PMs.

We decided that a community vote and an "expert" vote was the best way to go, I would need a convincing arguement to sway me away from this choice. Also, we aren't going to block the participants from voting because those are the ones who are most interested in the event and most willing to really look at entries.

 The participants of Brawl event are interested in voting for their own team and not interested in voting for the best submission, there is great bias here. I seriously believe the participants shouldn't be able to vote for any submissions. If we need more voters (and we need more of them indeed), we have to advertise Forum Brawl much more than before. After all, I don't think there was enough time for proper promotion of Brawl. I suppose War#1 wasn't as famous as War#2 or War#3, was it? Same goes for Brawl; we are likely going to have more voters during the 2nd Brawl.
 However, the voting system should give voters up to 3 votes; a gold, a silver and a bronze one. That would be much more fair in my opinion.

[Naesala]

Spoiler for Hidden:

Or we could just remove voting altogether and have anyone who's not participating apply for being a judge and give 1-2 points for each judge's vote (the Council Members would still be voting). Votes would be sent in via PMs.

We decided that a community vote and an "expert" vote was the best way to go, I would need a convincing arguement to sway me away from this choice. Also, we aren't going to block the participants from voting because those are the ones who are most interested in the event and most willing to really look at entries.

 The participants of Brawl event are interested in voting for their own team and not interested in voting for the best submission, there is great bias here. I seriously believe the participants shouldn't be able to vote for any submissions. If we need more voters (and we need more of them indeed), we have to advertise Forum Brawl much more than before. After all, I don't think there was enough time for proper promotion of Brawl. I suppose War#1 wasn't as famous as War#2 or War#3, was it? Same goes for Brawl; we are likely going to have more voters during the 2nd Brawl.

However, the voting system should give voters up to 3 votes; a gold, a silver and a bronze one. That would be much more fair in my opinion.

Elaborate how this would be done and what it would mean, and how it would be better than the two vote system. As I envision what you're saying, teams will give themselves the gold, and no -real- change will occur. But perhaps i need more explanation.

What if, each round, the two less voted teams (or individuals) go to a public voting, and the loser gets cut from the event?

I dont like the idea of cutting people. I want people to be able to enjoy the whole event, as people may perform better in later rounds than in earlier ones and its much different than say a battle.

[ARTHANASIOS]

^ No, people won't give themselves the gold, since forum participants won't be able to vote for themselves or to vote for any submissions at all (debatable). The gold vote would give 3 points, the silver one 2 and the bronze one 1 point to the selected submissions. This will help honest voters who like more than a single submission to share their votes fair & square among them.
 Furthermore, since I think there was a big amount of troll/noob/smurf/imature voters, I suggest only Jr.Members or above to be able to vote for Brawl (just an opinion).

[OldTrees]

Well, I wouldn't mind if there was no public voting and just a broader and more specific experts panel (what i mean by specific, like OT voting for the card, vrt for the art, etc).

A voting panel would be nice, but making one person in charge of one part wouldn't be a good idea because then bias would play a very large role.

Agreed. Even experts have personal preferences/have erroneous ideas. The more experts the greater the merit based voting.
I do like the idea of specific experts though.

[Naesala]

^ No, people won't give themselves the gold, since forum participants won't be able to vote for themselves or to vote for any submissions at all (debatable). The gold vote would give 3 points, the silver one 2 and the bronze one 1 point to the selected submissions. This will help honest voters who like more than a single submission to share their votes fair & square among them.
 Furthermore, since I think there was a big amount of troll/noob/smurf/imature voters, I suggest only Jr.Members or above to be able to vote for Brawl (just an opinion).

I feel this would leave almost no voters, which would reduce this almost solely to an "expert" vote. I am opposed to removing the community from the event

[furballdn]

Another thing: Update please? Brawl was really lagging in updates the whole time. It's not that big of a deal with such a foregone conclusion, but it makes brawl feel a bit unpolished with such slow updates of standings and all that.

Redemption is definitely a big part. Either make later rounds worth more than the earlier rounds, or make it so the number one team can't participate in an extra credit activity (although that will just lead to teams trying to stay at 2nd place until the end). Just make later rounds worth more points.

Auction please. Much better balancer. Having a leader choose his own team means that there will be much more synergy among the members and they will help each other out. Also equalizes the playing field.

Voting. Lots of voting results were just...odd. Have players declare WHY they want to vote for a specific one; I've seen way too many submissions win merely because of flashiness and colorful text instead of its content. At the very least, a player who says "I vote for X because of all those 12 shiny colors!" will be looked at with contempt.

[n00b]

I'm not sure if this has been stated before in this topic, though I mentioned it in chat/elsewhere before, iirc, so I shall put it here.

I think this Brawl lacked in requiring teamwork. It seemed like the only thing holding the teams together was the fact that all of their points got added together (to eventually decide the winning teams). A suggestion of mine, and mind you, this is only a suggestion, is that maybe each team has a common goal they work towards: The Card Creator designs a card, the deckbuilder builds a deck using it, the writer writes lore about it, the Boss could just be the one to keep everything organized and post/send it in, and the FE and OT do... something. Just a thought...

[Naesala]

I'm not sure if this has been stated before in this topic, though I mentioned it in chat/elsewhere before, iirc, so I shall put it here.

I think this Brawl lacked in requiring teamwork. It seemed like the only thing holding the teams together was the fact that all of their points got added together (to eventually decide the winning teams). A suggestion of mine, and mind you, this is only a suggestion, is that maybe each team has a common goal they work towards: The Card Creator designs a card, the deckbuilder builds a deck using it, the writer writes lore about it, the Boss could just be the one to keep everything organized and post/send it in, and the FE and OT do... something. Just a thought...

This has been pointed out before at several points but even in your post you can see where the problem lies. Not everyone can work together on every task and, even if the did, it would all have to be based off a card designer or deck master

That said, I -do- intend t increase teamwork and have more teamwork rounds where a few work together. Hopefully this will balance the "team" aspect and the "creativity" aspect

Another thing: Update please? Brawl was really lagging in updates the whole time. It's not that big of a deal with such a foregone conclusion, but it makes brawl feel a bit unpolished with such slow updates of standings and all that.

Redemption is definitely a big part. Either make later rounds worth more than the earlier rounds, or make it so the number one team can't participate in an extra credit activity (although that will just lead to teams trying to stay at 2nd place until the end). Just make later rounds worth more points.

Auction please. Much better balancer. Having a leader choose his own team means that there will be much more synergy among the members and they will help each other out. Also equalizes the playing field.

Voting. Lots of voting results were just...odd. Have players declare WHY they want to vote for a specific one; I've seen way too many submissions win merely because of flashiness and colorful text instead of its content. At the very least, a player who says "I vote for X because of all those 12 shiny colors!" will be looked at with contempt.

Hopefully speed will be increased in Brawl 2. We can only address this so much however.
Will do
Heavily considering
Shall be fixed though not necessarily that way. ^_^

[OldTrees]

Voting. Lots of voting results were just...odd. Have players declare WHY they want to vote for a specific one; I've seen way too many submissions win merely because of flashiness and colorful text instead of its content. At the very least, a player who says "I vote for X because of all those 12 shiny colors!" will be looked at with contempt.

Shall be fixed though not necessarily that way. ^_^

A lesser version of n00b's suggestion can be more readily implemented. If voters are encouraged to discuss while voting then we will see more of the reasoning (or at least rationalization) behind votes. This already happens (ex: my comments praising or criticizing the card designers) but such a voting culture has to be cultivated. If the authors of the posts were known then players that are not the author will not be afraid of being mistaken as the author and thus hurt the card they support. This may or may not outweigh the side effects of making the authors known.

Do not let this type of solution deter you from implementing other solutions.