Three Months to Go

Pepsi Ranger · Post by **Pepsi Ranger** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:16 pm

Just a reminder to everyone that Heart of the OHR 2012 starts three months from this past Thursday (I had meant to post this reminder then, and then forgot about it). Hope you're getting your plans together, for the June-November release window will be on us before you know it.

I think many of you will be happy to know that a few of the rules will change slightly this year to make things run in a more sensible direction. Also, several of 2010's prizes will make a repeat appearance this year, including the much-loved entry T-shirts. If you're not sure whether you'll enter this year, please consider doing so. You don't have to wait for the contest to release your game, but you should certainly submit your game to the contest if you are ready during that time (and if it's an RPG).

If you're new and don't know much about Heart of the OHR, feel free to visit the original thread here:

http://www.slimesalad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3679

And the 2012 Preproduction thread here:

http://www.slimesalad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3982

Let's start getting those RPGs ready.

Master K · Post by **Master K** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:22 pm

I'm probably gonna enter Pokemon Beige into it. Hopefully i'll have enough of it done by then. It is an RPG, and Fan Game's arn't banned.

mjohnson092088 · Post by **mjohnson092088** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:27 am

i'm hoping to get some more work done on FDL for this. i at least want to catch the new content up to the point where the demo ends. i'll probably have the new version uploaded within the next month.

charbile · Post by **charbile** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:11 am

Are the voting rules a part of these few rule changes? I skimmed through the threads and found them interesting. I don't want to argue them, I'm here for the free t-shirts as it were. Just curious.

The idea is a game's score is based on the average of people's votes and how many people voted on it. It's the last part I find odd. If a game is such that few or a lot of people vote on it, doesn't that say something about it's appeal and quality right there? Say, if 10 people vote Apples a 3, and 2 people vote Bananas game a 5 star, can you really say Bananas are better than Apples? I understand it's a scheme to force more votes out of people, but... curious how it worked out last time, what you thought about it.

Btw, those t-shirts are hard to resist. If I had one, I could find all the local ohr-ers in my area! Represent.

KF Harlock · Post by **KF Harlock** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:12 am

Hey, Char...

**STUNNING SALTS!!**

*vanish*

charbile · Post by **charbile** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:15 am

Post by **Bob the Hamster** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:01 pm

Because I never miss a chance to harp on condorcet voting: I think we should use condorcet voting.

=VOTE=

Rank all games in order from favorite to least favorite.

=COUNT=

A) Count the top non-ignored game from every list.

B) If nobody gets more than 50%, add the lowest ranking game to the temporary-ignore list, and repeat.

C) As soon as one game has more than 50% at the end of a round, it wins, and it is added to the permanently-ignored list. The temporary-ignore list gets emptied, and you start again to find second place.

----
...but it is not up to me to set the voting rules. Pepsi's choice rules the day :)

I will be working on Wandering Hamster for the HotOHR this year :)

Pepsi Ranger · Post by **Pepsi Ranger** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:44 pm

About the votes question:

I'm happy with the way the voting system worked in Heart of the OHR 2010. Yes, there was one major flaw that bubbled to the surface in that system that I have plans to iron out for the 2012 contest. Two rereleased games, Vikings of Midgard and Do You Want to Be a Hero?, might've gotten an unfair lead in the rankings because of this system (both games received the fewest number of votes, with Vikings raking in half of what Motrya took in). But voters were warned of this possibility and many still chose not to include them in their votes. The system worked exactly as I had intended it to work.

However, I understand that it would be unfair to do things in exactly the same way again, especially if a game like Wandering Hamster is making an entrance, so I will be implementing the long-requested categorical vote this time. That means new games and rereleased games will be siphoned into specific categories and given separate honors for the smaller prizes. Because I think only one person should take home the big prizes (we're too small of a community to dish out two identical sets of prizes), the winner of the cumulative vote, which will be handled exactly as before, will be whomever has the highest score of any game in the contest.

So, the moral of the story is that people should still play all the games and vote, but newer games will have an easier time standing up against the older ones than before.

There will actually be three categories this year, but the third won't be eligible for vote. You all can speculate on what this category might be. (The person who already knows about this category should refrain from speaking about it, since I'd like it to be a surprise.)

James, I'd consider your system if I were able to follow it.

Post by **Bob the Hamster** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:59 pm

Pepsi Ranger wrote:James, I'd consider your system if I were able to follow it.

Each time I re-explain condorcet voting, I think I have done so in such a clear and obvious way that everyone will follow it... instead, everybody persists in having no idea what the hell I am talking about :)

Post by **Mogri** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:30 am

Let me see if I can make this muddier for you, Pepsi.

=WHAT VOTERS DO=

Voters present an ordered list of games. Here is an example of four voters' votes:

1. Wandering Fish
2. Lonely Cactus
3. Renegade Lawyers

1. Lonely Cactus

1. Wandering Fish
2. Legendary Carrot
3. Renegade Lawyers
4. Lonely Cactus

1. Legendary Carrot
2. Wandering Fish
3. Lonely Cactus

=WHAT THE MODERATOR DOES=

Step 1: Make a TopVote list consisting of the #1 game on everyone's vote.

Step 2: If no game has more than 50% of the entries on your TopVote list, find the game with the fewest entries on the TopVote list and add it to the Notawinner list. Go back to step 1 and try again, this time ignoring any game on the Notawinner list.

Step 3: If one game has more than 50% of the entries on your TopVote list, then that game is the winner. Empty out your Notawinner list and start over from step #1 to find the runners-up, this time ignoring any game that has already won.

So in the case of our example:

First pass
The #1 entry of each vote is Wandering Fish, Lonely Cactus, Wandering Fish, and Legendary Carrot. No game has more than 50% of the vote, so Lonely Cactus and Legendary Carrot are added to the Notawinner list.

Second pass
Ignoring our Notawinners, the #1 entry of each vote is Wandering Fish, Wandering Fish, Wandering Fish. That game is the winner.

Third pass
Ignoring Wandering Fish, the #1 entry of each vote is Lonely Cactus, Lonely Cactus, Legendary Carrot, and Legendary Carrot. These two games tie for second.

Fourth pass
Renegade Lawyers is the only game left. It takes fourth place.

Pepsi Ranger · Post by **Pepsi Ranger** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:36 am

Okay, that does make a lot more sense with the examples. Thanks, Mogri. I'll weigh the options when we get closer to the window. What I might do is compare the original contest's rankings as they were tabulated through averages with the condorcet way of ranking and see how differently the list might've looked. (I'll post them here so that we can all see the difference.) Then I'll spend some time considering which way makes more sense. Since you guys are the ones participating, I'll certainly listen to your defense for using one form or the other.

I'm on vacation this week, so I'll have time to actually compile a condorcet list of 2010's games pretty much now.

charbile · Post by **charbile** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:02 am

It's an interesting subject. I've noticed a pattern: the most fun is all that happens right up to when it's time to vote. Nobody wants to rain on anyone else's game, even when they have every reason to. Can't please everybody. Like I said before, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. It's tricky business.

To me the question is more what exactly do you want the voting to accomplish. If you want it to feel fair, James' suggestion kind of works. It's a great system if you ever feel like you can't vote for the game you know will lose because you'll be throwing your vote away. Is it the best here? Again, depends on what you want. Personally, I'd like a system where people won't feel like they'll be at each other's throats, but I can't deny the joy of juicy, juicy drama. Some system where voting is actually a fun party.

And may as well add a "Wandering Hamster" category. Game over man, game over.

Wait a tic. How will newer games have an easier time if it's a cumulative vote?

Pepsi Ranger · Post by **Pepsi Ranger** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:16 am

Okay, this process was dreadfully tedious and I now feel blinded by all the numbness I feel from having gone back and forth retabulating votes that I haven't looked at in over a year.

But for your amusement, here is the original rank (by averages) compared to the recompiled condorcet version. I have some disclaimers to pass along at the bottom of this posting, so keep reading:

(By Averages -- The Real List of Winners)

(total score / number of voters)

1. Motrya
95 / 10 = 9.5

2. Vikings of Midgard
39 / 5 = 7.8

3. Do You Want To Be a Hero?
52 / 7 = 7.43

4. Legendary Heroes
76 / 11 = 6.91

5. Skyfall
63 / 10 = 6.3

6. Eternity Fragment Prelude
74 / 12 = 6.17

7. Viridia Chapter 2
63 / 11 = 5.73

8. Okédoké! La Leyenda Mexicana
43 / 8 = 5.38

9. Apophenia Demo
53 / 11 = 4.82

10. Tales of the New World 2
37 / 9 = 4.11

11. Chronoboy Adventures
34 / 11 = 3.09

12. Hero
23 / 10 = 2.3

(By Condorcet -- Hypothetical List of Winners)

1. Motrya
2. Eternity Fragment
2. Do You Want to Be a Hero?
2. Legendary Heroes
5. Skyfall
6. Viridia
7. Okedoke
8. Apophenia
9. Chronoboy Adventures
10. Hero
10. Vikings of Midgard
12. Tales of the New World 2

You'll notice that with one major exception most of the rankings have been pretty consistent with the original list in regard to placement with one another. However, I cannot claim the accuracy of this list, since I had to manually rank the games according to their scores, which meant having to arbitrarily rank any number of games that shared the same scores. Most notorious were Barnabus's scores, which ranked five games at second place because he had given them all a score of 9. Obviously, any one of these games could have changed places without betraying the average vote, but manually moving one to the top (Eternity Fragment) and one to the bottom (Legendary Heroes) by matter of copying and pasting into a manageable order could've been responsible for the three-way tie represented in this hypothetical list, even though both of them, and three others, each earned the same score.

But that doesn't matter because the system does seem to work. Mostly.

The one noticeable change you'll see is the massive drop that Vikings of Midgard made on the list. In the average vote, it earned 2nd place. In the condorcet vote, it tied with Hero. How was this possible when Vikings's average score was 7.8 and Hero's was 2.3?

Simple. Only five people voted for it. From the sixth round on, every vote cast for it earned the top vote, but it lost to Apophenia (6th Round), Chronoboy Adventures (7th Round -- and the only round that Chronoboy made any top vote), and tied with Hero (8th Round) because the total votes had dropped down from 12 people to 10.

So, what have I concluded?

Condorcet voting is a good plan if every game gets ranked by more than 50% of the voters. But in the case of Vikings of Midgard, which only received votes from 42% of voters, it's error-prone, and some games will lose to less deserving games by sheer volume of numbers. It's essentially no different than a political race.

I'll still consider this method, but I'm strongly leaning toward the average vote again based on the fairness factor. What I may do is have people vote by rank, but also give a score. That way I can decide which method will work out better come voting time.

Feel free to speak up if you have something to say about this.

FnrrfYgmSchnish · Post by **FnrrfYgmSchnish** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:39 am

I don't have too much of an opinion on how the votes work, as long as they work well enough to get the contest results figured out without too many problems... but personally, I've never really liked the 10-point scale for contest voting. From what I've seen it seems to kind of encourage people to fling around either very high votes (example that actually happened: giving 9's to half of the games in the contest) or very low votes (example that may or may not have happened, I don't remember off the top of my head: giving every game you didn't like a 1 or 2, just because) like crazy.

Having that much of a range between the top score possible and bottom score possible kind of complicates things--what exactly do all those middle scores mean? Some people might see a 5 as really bad (probably because they're used to the 100-point scale used in schools and 50 is definitely a failing grade), while other people would see a 5 as an average score (because it's right in the middle between 1 and 10.)

A 5-point scale seems less complicated in that way--5 is really good, 4 is good, 3 is average, 2 is bad, and 1 is really bad. Not a lot of room for different interpretations, so the thought behind the votes and the actual numbers being given should match up better.

And I guess if someone wanted more of the broad range of possible scores from a 10-point scale to make more of a distinction between two games they though were almost equally good (or bad) without giving one a full point lower than the other, they could always go into the decimals and give one a 4.0 and the other a 4.5, or something like that.

Spoonweaver · Post by **Spoonweaver** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:25 pm

What I may do is have people vote by rank, but also give a score. That way I can decide which method will work out better come voting time.

I'm completely against this. If you did that you'd basically be deciding the outcome yourself.

I agree with what FnrrfYgmSchnish is saying. A point system tends to favor the votes of the insane. If a person goes and votes the games he likes as 10 and the games he dislikes as 1 then his totals actually count more then the votes of the people that carefully weighed their scores based off of graphics gameplay and enjoyability (or whatever system they used) In short, a point based system gives troll votes more power then serious votes.