Forum Brawl #3 - Suggestions and Feedback

[OldTrees]

In my opinion the possibility for brawlers to vote is nonsense. Therefore, I will not vote anymore for anyone in this brawl.

Reason 1: It's a simple logic. I feel bad when I help other teams and not my own team. I'm afraid most of votes come from brawlers, if you don't take your chance to vote on your team, I think the vote is lost. I know this event is for fun, but it's still a game and, maybe it's just me, but the ultimate purpose of a game, where we have winners and losers, is to win. I take part in this event in order to have fun, but also to win, as a boss I'm double responsible for the team, and my task is to help my team to win. Voting for others, I don't help my team. Team members who don't vote on their team do not help their team. It's simple as that.

But voting on yourselves is kind of lame and what if I find works from other teams better than stuff from my team? We go to:

Reason 2: I don't want to choose between someone from my team and other teams. Even if I think, for example, other teams did better that someone from my team, I don't want to state it out loud, in front of his face, especially knowing he did his best. Yes, of course there is diffrent situation if someone is just idling a lot, but generally I would rather not vote at all anyway.

Maybe I have a strong feeling of unity and I was always taught that "a bird doesn't poo into his nest", and in English it is: It's an ill bird that fouls its own nest.

I know that rules can't be changed in this Brawl, I will cope with that, but as a sign I don't approve of it I will not vote. Maybe I will state my opinion on certain works, but I will not vote.

Suggestions for next Brawls: Do not allow brawlers to vote at all or force them to give at least one vote, but only votes on other teams are allowed. If team did not vote, the penalty would be losing 1 point for example for each ungiven individual vote.

Brawlers are the people most interested in the event and frequently the best suited to judge their sections of the event. So it is reasonable to allow them to vote if they can vote honestly.
In brawl 2, we brawlers were given up to 2 votes. While everyone was expected to vote for their own team (no spoiling the nest) and then use their 1 true vote on another team. However some of the time brawlers would not use that second vote or would use that 2nd vote strategically instead of honestly. By moving the brawler votes to private sections that need to be typed out AND by requiring both votes be used, this problem has been solved.
We still have the circumstance that brawlers have 1 true vote (excepting the times a brawler spoils the nest because 2 rivals did sufficiently well to deserve the votes)


While the voting system is currently well designed (and I hope you continue voting), your alteration (brawlers get 1 vote and can't vote for their team) is a good idea given the typed voting system. Honestly with the no voting for your team restriction, we could increase the brawler votes back to 2.

[the dictator]

While the voting system is currently well designed (and I hope you continue voting), your alteration (brawlers get 1 vote and can't vote for their team) is a good idea given the typed voting system. Honestly with the no voting for your team restriction, we could increase the brawler votes back to 2.

Except the current systems penalizes your own team if you don't vote, while that with that change it would be a strategic choice to not vote at all.

[OldTrees]

While the voting system is currently well designed (and I hope you continue voting), your alteration (brawlers get 1 vote and can't vote for their team) is a good idea given the typed voting system. Honestly with the no voting for your team restriction, we could increase the brawler votes back to 2.

Except the current systems penalizes your own team if you don't vote, while that with that change it would be a strategic choice to not vote at all.

The suggestion in question has a penalty to your team if you don't vote. (-1 point from your team > +1 point to two rivals)

[Apoch the Mad]

My suggestion (for next brawl) would be to allow brawlers to vote, but have a weighted system in place that limits the influence of their votes in the overall tallying.

It would work like this:

- Teams each get 1 vote for one other team (not themselves) per round, per category. (Essentially coming to a consensus who they feel did almost as good as they did, a "props" vote)
- Teams arrive at the vote by debating amongst themselves in private forums during the voting window.
- Their vote is determined by majority rules (Boss vote breaks any tie)
- Teams failing to vote are penalized -1 point for unsportsmanlike conduct.
- Any non-brawler who votes is limited to 1 vote per category, each vote being equal to that of an entire brawl team's. (This is to both encourage outside participation and "no dog in the fight" unbiased voting)

The reasons being:

(1): Scoring is still significantly influenced by the brawlers themselves but not largely determined by them, which in any official competition is the case (usually excluding them entirely)
(2): Gives a greater emphasis to the very in-depth bidding point system, which has all but been washed away after a single round in the current Brawl (during the round with the "least" significance score-wise), due to point inflation. Bosses will be less likely to throw 10 points at a proven bread-winner if it isn't certain they will earn at least an 11 point return. Bidding might also take on an "auction-house" intensity as bosses struggle to retain as many starting points as possible while not letting their star picks get drafted to opposing teams.

[Naesala]

A handful of criticisms:

1) I still do not understand CrockettRocket's suggestion

2) Not voting for Brawlers will never be an option. They showed interest in the event, they will get votes. The forums even at their prime were not good enough for this event to run with no Brawlers voting.

3) Giving Brawlers 1(or 2) votes forced to other teams eliminates A) If a team honestly feels their submission is best with no bias B) the option to vote for two teams if you honestly thought yours wasn't as good.

4) Reducing the impact of Brawlers and increasing that of nonbrawlers A) has problem number 2. B) Won't eliminate biased voting entirely, as I'm sure nonbrawlers still hold some bias C) Will cause inter-team conflicts that I don't want.

Feel free to keep discussing voting changes however I will say I spent more time on restructuring voting than everything else combined so I'm not likely to change it unless someone has an incredibly good idea with significantly more benefits than downsides.

[OldTrees]

2) Not voting for Brawlers will never be an option. They showed interest in the event, they will get votes. The forums even at their prime were not good enough for this event to run with no Brawlers voting.

I strongly agree on this. Maybe this is my CI&A experience showing through, but I am used to skilled competitors in a merit based competition being primarily concerned with voting based on merit.

3) Giving Brawlers 1(or 2) votes forced to other teams eliminates A) If a team honestly feels their submission is best with no bias B) the option to vote for two teams if you honestly thought yours wasn't as good.

Technically only B is applicable. By forcing every brawler to vote and not to vote for their own team, then it is the same as if every brawler got a free mandatory loyalty vote. (since +0 to everyone is the same as +6 to everyone)
That said, B is a good point.

Feel free to keep discussing voting changes however I will say I spent more time on restructuring voting than everything else combined so I'm not likely to change it unless someone has an incredibly good idea with significantly more benefits than downsides.

Isn't that great? The event is so perfect that the only nitpicks people can find is with the voting system. (I do feel your frustration though and your waiting is entirely justified)

[Naesala]

3) Giving Brawlers 1(or 2) votes forced to other teams eliminates A) If a team honestly feels their submission is best with no bias B) the option to vote for two teams if you honestly thought yours wasn't as good.

Technically only B is applicable. By forcing every brawler to vote and not to vote for their own team, then it is the same as if every brawler got a free mandatory loyalty vote. (since +0 to everyone is the same as +6 to everyone)
That said, B is a good point.

Feel free to keep discussing voting changes however I will say I spent more time on restructuring voting than everything else combined so I'm not likely to change it unless someone has an incredibly good idea with significantly more benefits than downsides.

Isn't that great? The event is so perfect that the only nitpicks people can find is with the voting system. (I do feel your frustration though and your waiting is entirely justified)

I meant more along the lines of "feelings" than about fair voting overall for the event. I'd try to explain more but I'm running out the door ^_^

That is a very positive spin to take on it, and I am happy that the only controllable criticism is the voting at this point (there's been complaints about low participation to, but that's hardly something any of us can control when the forums are this stagnant.) Thanks for the positive view ^_^

[OldTrees]

I meant more along the lines of "feelings" than about fair voting overall for the event. I'd try to explain more but I'm running out the door ^_^

Ah, I can see how A might exist now.

At this point I agree with the current voting system.

[andretimpa]

1) I still do not understand CrockettRocket's suggestion

It is close to electing a president, except inverted really.

tl;dr he wants applicants to choose before the auction one team. This team would always win a tie in the bids. Somehow this would prevent stacking teams (by which he either means making a pile of teams or putting too many good players in the same team, that's a bit hazy), which would be a good thing because stacking is bad.

Spoiler for unnecessary example:

Player A chooses team Awesome as his favouritest team before the auction. The boss from team NotSoAwesome bids 5 points in A. The following day, team Awesome's boss also bids 5 on A. Sucks for NotSoAwesome's boss since by the rules of awesomosity and favouritestness, team Awesome is now leading the bid for A even though it is a tie (serves you right for naming your team NotSoAwesome, if you ask me).

[CrockettRocket]

No. Thats not my suggestion,  I dont see why this is so confusing. Maybe because it's a new idea?

My suggestion is that bosses bid on a player, and what decides the player going to that bosses team is not the amount the boss bid, but if the player wants to go on that team. Basically bosses will say "I want him on my team, if he wants to join me" then the player will choose.

Question: Why have bidding then? Can't the teams still be stacked by all the best brawlers saying they want to be on a certain team?
Answer: We have bidding in this case because the only way to overrule a player wanting to be on a certain team is for another boss to bid 2 points more then the favored boss. So in the event of a tie or even one over, the favored boss will still win. Teams can make sure stacking doesnt happen cause a boss cant bid 8 points on every player he wants. 8*7=56. When you only have 50 points. So say you tried to get every player you wanted, on that last player another team could bid 10 points and disrupt you from stacking.

Question: I dont really like the non-favoured bosses having to vote 2 more then the favored bosses to win the player, can this be changed?
Answer:Yes it could be changed, but only as low as 1. And as high as 9. 9 would be stupidly redicoulous and would allow very easily for teams to stack their players. 1 and 2 makes it impossible to stack.


As it is now players choose in the event of a tie bid for bosses. My suggestion is that players always get to choose unless the boss bids 2 more over the favored boss. This can again change between 1-9, with 1 and 2 making it impossible to fully stack a team.

[OldTrees]

As it is now players choose in the event of a tie bid for bosses. My suggestion is that players always get to choose unless the boss bids 2 more over the favored boss. This can again change between 1-9, with 1 and 2 making it impossible to fully stack a team.

What about when the bosses exploit this by all bidding the minimum amount? I see little incentive for bidding wars to occur when the bids do not determine who gets the player.

Sure a boss can claim a player by beating the bid by 2 (instead of the 1 currently). But this suggestion weakens the purpose of the auction for no apparent gain. (It is harder to stack a team when you have to bid for them than it is when you can get them without bidding)

Currently (+1 to break ties) it costs 6 players * 10 (max bid + 1 - 1[tiebreaking minimum]) = 60 points to stack a team
Your suggestion (+2 to break ties) decreases the cost to 6 players * 9 (max bid + 1 - 2[tiebreaking minimum]) = 54 points to stack a team

So I remain confused as to the purpose of your suggestion/problem you are trying to fix

[theelkspeaks]

No. Thats not my suggestion,  I dont see why this is so confusing. Maybe because it's a new idea?

My suggestion is that bosses bid on a player, and what decides the player going to that bosses team is not the amount the boss bid, but if the player wants to go on that team. Basically bosses will say "I want him on my team, if he wants to join me" then the player will choose.

Question: Why have bidding then? Can't the teams still be stacked by all the best brawlers saying they want to be on a certain team?
Answer: We have bidding in this case because the only way to overrule a player wanting to be on a certain team is for another boss to bid 2 points more then the favored boss. So in the event of a tie or even one over, the favored boss will still win. Teams can make sure stacking doesnt happen cause a boss cant bid 8 points on every player he wants. 8*7=56. When you only have 50 points. So say you tried to get every player you wanted, on that last player another team could bid 10 points and disrupt you from stacking.

Question: I dont really like the non-favoured bosses having to vote 2 more then the favored bosses to win the player, can this be changed?
Answer:Yes it could be changed, but only as low as 1. And as high as 9. 9 would be stupidly redicoulous and would allow very easily for teams to stack their players. 1 and 2 makes it impossible to stack.


As it is now players choose in the event of a tie bid for bosses. My suggestion is that players always get to choose unless the boss bids 2 more over the favored boss. This can again change between 1-9, with 1 and 2 making it impossible to fully stack a team.

This could/would actually lead to MORE stacking, as players who wanted to make a stacked team would just agree to select the same boss as their favored boss, and your system would make it HARDER for other bosses to outbid to counteract the stacking.