Forum Brawl #3 - Suggestions and Feedback

[Naesala]

I suggest the Brawlmasters check with someone reliable if their tasks are feasible, before Brawl starts.

Seriously, last round's CD task was only doable sacrificing quality over quantity and this round's Artist task is not only insanelly complicated, but I think there's at most a handful of people in this community that would be able to judge the submissions as they deserve.

Both these tasks are meant to be challenging. Sets of cards is something card designers do. Baroque style can be achieved without necessarily devoting to much time and making a super deep painting, you just have to attempt the style.

And we do check as much as we can. But we can hardly reveal tasks when anyone we reveal a task to cannot participate in Brawl fairly. At least 3-4 people in chat said that making an 8 card set in a weak was more than feasible.

[Dm]

Don't worry, you barely got enough players to join - I'm fairly certain there are skilled and knowledgeable people out there who have no interest in joining brawl and can check the validity of tasks.

[OldTrees]

Making a quality 8 card set in a week is not feasible*. But that wasn't the challenge was it? The challenge was to try to make as good of an 8 card set in a week as the brawler could. The inevitability of mistakes and rough parts helps differentiate between brawlers of similar levels of skill.

*Excluding sets made of 1 card shifted into each element(Pillars)

[rob77dp]

Making a quality 8 card set in a week is not feasible. But that wasn't the challenge was it? The challenge was to try to make as good of an 8 card set in a week as the brawler could. The inevitability of mistakes and rough parts helps differentiate between brawlers of similar levels of skill.

I would modify that just a bit, though.  It does to an extent differentiate between "similar levels of skill" but having been part of the specific task discussed I can attest the feeling I have is more that it measured how many hours the team was able to devote to join-venturing the 8-card set task.

Please also note this is intended as neither complaint, praise, or opinion of "quality of the task assigned", rather as response to what I feel is correct, but only partially so.



(Once again, it is quite nice having you around here and making comments and votes etc. on Brawl, OT.)

[OldTrees]

Making a quality 8 card set in a week is not feasible. But that wasn't the challenge was it? The challenge was to try to make as good of an 8 card set in a week as the brawler could. The inevitability of mistakes and rough parts helps differentiate between brawlers of similar levels of skill.

I would modify that just a bit, though.  It does to an extent differentiate between "similar levels of skill" but having been part of the specific task discussed I can attest the feeling I have is more that it measured how many hours the team was able to devote to join-venturing the 8-card set task.

Please also note this is intended as neither complaint, praise, or opinion of "quality of the task assigned", rather as response to what I feel is correct, but only partially so.


(Once again, it is quite nice having you around here and making comments and votes etc. on Brawl, OT.)

Time spent would be an important component to the quality of the product. I would kinda assume each team devoted similar amounts of time to this particular task (with some variation of course). Even with the entire team spending time on the task, I would expect each card to only get a small number (5) of revisions (please correct me if I am wrong). This means the end product is much closer to a first attempt than it is to a finalized polished version.

[russianspy1234]

Making a quality 8 card set in a week is not feasible. But that wasn't the challenge was it? The challenge was to try to make as good of an 8 card set in a week as the brawler could. The inevitability of mistakes and rough parts helps differentiate between brawlers of similar levels of skill.

I would modify that just a bit, though.  It does to an extent differentiate between "similar levels of skill" but having been part of the specific task discussed I can attest the feeling I have is more that it measured how many hours the team was able to devote to join-venturing the 8-card set task.

Please also note this is intended as neither complaint, praise, or opinion of "quality of the task assigned", rather as response to what I feel is correct, but only partially so.


(Once again, it is quite nice having you around here and making comments and votes etc. on Brawl, OT.)

Time spent would be an important component to the quality of the product. I would kinda assume each team devoted similar amounts of time to this particular task (with some variation of course). Even with the entire team spending time on the task, I would expect each card to only get a small number (5) of revisions (please correct me if I am wrong). This means the end product is much closer to a first attempt than it is to a finalized polished version.

I spent a fair amount of time making creatures, and then cranked out the set I did not long after Nae mentioned the allowability of a new card type with minimal revisions.

[OldTrees]

Now, if this crappy things can happen, then the voting system isn't so...balanced? Fair? Use the word you want.

Let's make an example: what doth hinder me to send some PM's to other players asking to be voted?

What doth hinder me to vote someone in a team just because is more friendly to me than other players?

Or again, what doth hinder me to vote...randomly?

The game is game and i know it very well, and this event (that i like very much) is for fun; but as i already wrote, all brawlers spend a part of their time in brawl tasks, and this voting system has so many "leaks" that each round each work submitted may not receive the just judgment.

I'll wrote my suggestion for next brawl voting system in the dedicated thread.

Again, no complains/flame/trolling intended. Maybe a little bit of frustration at seeing our (brawlers) efforts/works often judged beyond their actual value.

Allowing the community(brawler/non brawler) to vote does carry the cost of enabling what you referred to as non-sense voting. However community voting does bring some benefits that expert only voting does not. Community voting means more voters. Not only does this allow results to be more precise but it also avoids the occasional Ivory Tower problem*.

*Ivory Tower problem is when smaller number of perspectives in the expert group causes them to overlook/misjudge something that the larger community can see/judge accurately. (This is a rare but extant problem for quality expert groups, I speak from experience)

A good voting system need to balance between expert and community voting. This is hard to do without knowing the size of the community voters. So far I have not seen a significant imbalance in any brawl.

[SpikeSpiegel]

In this moment of stagnation of the community, with few active members, a community voting isn't the best, imho.

But i agree in part with Oldtrees, if we'd have 1000 active members, a community vote would be fine. But looking at the current situation, I suggest a different voting system:

- A jury made by few people (5-7), educated with criteria of vote.
- No team votes.

[Naesala]

As I've said earlier (please do read what I've said) I will not do that for many reasons.

1) Brawlers are the ones most likely to vote in Brawl, and it's unfair to deny them the pleasure of voting and evaluating.
2) We lose probably the best person in each task as a possible person to apply for Brawl. I'd rather have more brawlers than a jury (especially when we couldn't hit even 6 teams)
3) I will not change the current system unless a proposed system is 100% for sure better, and there is a definite divide between those who want an elitist vote and those who want a democratic vote.
4) I don't like an elitist vote in the first place.

[CrockettRocket]

I understand both sides. To me the elitist vs democratic voting I just overlook. Decisions been made. But without change leaves no room for improvement. Sometimes you have to go on a limb and take risks. Not changing the system unless your sure its 100% better isnt for the best. I believe thats what you want though Nae. For everything to be for the best and most fun event on the forums. Also, please don't be bias in the suggestions. "4) I don't like an elitist vote in the first place" is more so opinion and I don't think it needs to be said for reasons why to reject elitist voting system. Caring about the community, and specifically brawl members, should be what everyone in the suggestions thread uses to back up why they think X should happen. If it makes you feel better Nae, I'm more so liking a democratic system over an elitist. I agree with you on a lot of stuff. How did you feel about implementing a disliked team though for bidding?

[Naesala]

While my opinion is the last and least important part in any decision I make, my opinion (and that of any other Brawlmaster) does matter in how we think is best to direct the event. I think elitism is bad both for the event and the community, and so I would definitely prefer not to have an elitist based vote.

I am considering "disliked" teams. I definitely want some sort of term that doesn't imply a dislike for anyone. I may just restructure how favored teams effects the auction.

[CrockettRocket]

Shouldn't your opinion be based off the facts though?